Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Meat and Livestock (Research)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the committee looking into the problems of meat and livestock; what details he can give of what is going on in this connection; and who on the committee is putting the housewives' point of view.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The Committee has made a general survey of research work already being done in relation to meat and livestock and has reached certain provisional conclusions on the most pressing problems for further investigation. I understand that it is now working out a plan of co-ordinated research, together with proposals for improvement of existing research facilities. The interests of housewives are represented directly on the Committee by Mrs. Hilda Whitlow, who is a housewife and a journalist.

Frozen Milk

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what development has taken place, or is contemplated, in exploiting the advantages

of frozen milk in respect of transportation and its use in places where fresh milk in not readily available.

Mr. Amory: I understand that the National Research Development Corporation, which is responsible for the commercial exploitation of this process, has licensed two firms to produce frozen milk, Small quantities are being sold to some shipping lines.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of the Minister of Education the fact that frozen milk will be much more desirable than the milk tablets which are being given to children in districts where it is difficult to transport liquid milk?

Mr. Amory: I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind. He will know that at present the freezing of milk is quite a costly process and involves special facilities for storage which are not generally available. It has a limited application at present.

Flour and Bread (Composition)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the Food Standards Committee in respect to considering the necessity for more regulations to govern the composition of flour and bread in the consumers' interests.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on Monday last.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all precautions are now being taken to ensure that the flour will not be less than 70 per cent. extraction, and that it contains an adequate amount of protein and all the nutrients needed for the safety of the consumer?

Mr. Amory: We are in a very much better position to ensure that flour is of the composition that it should be than we were some time ago. The recent change has helped considerably in that direction.

Horticultural Marketing (Committee's Report)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Runciman Committee on Horticultural Marketing.

Mr. Amory: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Malden (Mr. B. Harrison) on 28th January.

Sir I. Fraser: When may we expect to hear from my right hon. Friend on this matter?

Mr. Amory: In that reply, I said that the proposals would require a good deal of consideration by the interests involved, and then I shall hope to have consultation with all those interests. I said in my recent reply that I hoped that the Government would be in a position to announce their views on the main proposals before the Summer Recess.

Uneconomic Farm Units

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking in order to prepare the way to implement Section 28 of the White Paper, Long-term Assurances for Agriculture, and to prevent the further creation of uneconomic farming units by the splitting up for speculative purposes of sound agricultural properties.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) on Wednesday, 30th January, which amplifies the statement in the White Paper.

Mr. Price: Is it not a fact that it might be wasteful to spend money upon uneconomic holdings under the scheme in Section 28 when the holdings ought to be amalgamated, and there might be a waste of public money? Has the Minister considered that point?

Mr. Amory: I could not agree more with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am very anxious that we should adopt proper standards about the minimum holdings that would be regarded as economic, otherwise public expenditure would be wasted. In that connection I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we have said that in the case of an amalgamation of two or more holdings which are separately uneconomic and together might make an economic holding we would include certain of the expenses ancillary to amalgamation as eligible for grant.

Milk

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent retail milk sales have been affected by the removal of the subsidy on 1st January last and the increase of ½d. a pint in the price charged to consumers.

Mr. Amory: It is provisionally estimated that liquid milk sales for January, 1957, were about 1·2 per cent. less than they were in January, 1956.

Mr. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend take the view that this very insignificant fall is a temporary one and that it is a very encouraging sign of resilience in public demand, even when realistic rather than subsidised prices are charged?

Mr. Amory: I hope very much that consumption will rise. If the general public will follow my example and drink as much milk as I do per day, there should be no further trouble for years to come.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people do not enjoy the same income as he does, and that this increase is not a temporary one? Is he further aware that it will be aggravated by the mean increase made in the price of welfare milk?

Mr. Amory: The question of welfare milk does not arise on this Question. At present general retail prices I am quite satisfied that milk is most excellent value as a foodstuff.

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help is given to the milk producer whose percentage of solids not fat is persistently below the permitted minimum content of 8·5 per cent.

Mr. Amory: Where a milk producer is in difficulty over a consistently low percentage of solids not fat, the N.A.A.S. is ready to investigate conditions on the farm to see what remedies can be suggested.

Mr. Champion: Does it in fact give this advice? The information in my possession is that a farmer who had been in trouble about this matter for some considerable time received no help whatever from the N.A.A.S., despite his requests.

Mr. Amory: The causes of this trouble are at present not fully understood, as


the hon. Member will agree. If he knows of a case where he thinks the National Agricultural Advisory Service ought to have been of assistance and has not been of assistance, I should be very grateful to him if he would let me know.

Mr. Crouch: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is something to do with badly balanced nutrition for the cows which brings about a good deal of this trouble?

Mr. Amory: Where the experts themselves are very uncertain I should myself hesitate to intervene and express an opinion. I hope that we shall know the cause of this trouble in due course, but it will take some time.

Mr. G. Brown: Would it be possible to have some better liaison than appears to exist between the dairies which turn down the milk on the ground that it does not reach the standard and the N.A.A.S., which does not know that that is being done? Could the dairies be asked to advise the N.A.A.S. about cases in which this is happening?

Mr. Amory: I will look into the point which the right hon. Member has raised.

Forestry Commission (Norway Spruce Sales)

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the 60,000 Norway spruce under the age of 15 years sold by the Forestry Commission during the last six months of 1956 were more than five years old.

Mr. Amory: About 56,000.

Sir L. Ropner: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how many of those trees were sold as Christmas trees and how those which were sold as Christmas trees were marketed, either through wholesalers or direct? What system of planting necessitated the destruction of Norway spruce between the ages of five and 15 years?

Mr. Amory: All these young trees were sold as Christmas trees, but the very large majority of the Christmas trees sold by the Forestry Commission are the tops of thinnings which otherwise would be valueless. As to the method of marketing, I will look into that in detail and write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

I understand that the Forestry Commission is careful to see that its sales do not amount to an unfair proportion of the total sales. If they were to do so, that might be unfair to private woodland owners.

Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trees referred to in this Question have nothing to do with the tops of thinnings? Can he say whether there is a further large number of tops from thinnings with which the market is flooded just prior to Christmas?

Mr. Amory: A considerable number of tops from thinnings are sold as Christmas trees by the Forestry Commission, but that is not a number which, I am advised, could be said in any way to amount to a flooding of the market. I shall let my hon. and gallant Friend have such figures as are available.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that outrageous profits are made on the sale of Christmas trees? Is it not a good thing to encourage the Forestry Commission to make these sales?

Mr. Amory: I do not know whether outrageous profits are made, but if so, I certainly do not think that they are made by the Forestry Commission. In general I agree that if outrageous profits are made, the more competition there is the better.

Mr. Vane: Would my right hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) that any grower will sell him Christmas trees for 1s. a foot and that if he is paying much more he is buying the tree from the wrong place?

Mr. Amory: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) will advise the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) to buy early for next Christmas.

Egg Subsidy

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors have caused the increase in the subsidy on eggs from £19 million in 1955–56 to over £33 million in the present year.

Mr. Amory: The two main direct factors have been an increase in the


quantity of eggs sold to packing stations under the guarantee arrangements and a reduction in the average selling price for these eggs: both these factors reflect the underlying cause, which is a substantial increase in home production of eggs.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor claimed to have abolished the subsidy? Was that statement made in error? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many eggs are at present being exported to the Continent and whether they are subsidised?

Mr. Amory: I am informed that a very small number of eggs have been exported—during the past few months some hundreds of boxes, only an insignificant quantity. As the hon. Member knows, we are now producing about 100 per cent. of the eggs consumed in this country. The average price at present is about 5d. a dozen lower than it was this time last year and the increase in home production this year as opposed to last year amounts to about 7 per cent.

Agricultural Workers

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of agricultural workers who left employment on the land during the year ending 31st December, 1956.

Mr. Amory: The provisional result of the return taken on 4th December, 1956, showed that during the previous twelve months there had been a net reduction of 12,800, or just under 3 per cent., in the number of regular full-time agricultural workers employed in England and Wales. The total number of employed workers, including part-time, seasonal and casual workers, showed an increase of 1,700.

Mr. Hughes: If it continues, will not this annual reduction in the agricultural labour force have a very serious effect on agricultural production in this country, especially taking the long-term view? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what constructive steps he is taking to halt this serious decline?

Mr. Amory: We must keep this matter in perspective. From the point of view of ensuring that our agriculture remains competitive and able to pay proper remuneration to those employed in it, it

is very important that we should report continuing progress in reducing expenditure in terms of manpower per unit. I think it important that we should bear that in mind. The hon. Member may be interested to know that the December return showed that in his locality of Anglesey there appears to have been an increase this year of 177 regulars and 241 others, but I would ask him to remember that the return is based on a sample and, therefore, must be treated with some caution.

Mr. P. Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman help by taking more care of the type of letter that he sends to the National Farmers' Union in future?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would my right hon. Friend tell us whether the decline in agricultural workers is to some extent offset by a rise in forestry work?

Mr. Amory: In some parts of the country, it is, notably in Wales, where every year I am glad to see there is an increase in the number of workers employed on very stable employment in forestry. I hope very much to see that trend of employment in forestry steadily increase over the years. As to production, it is encouraging that so far the reduction in manpower in the industry has not had the effect of causing a reduction in total output.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that one cause for concern about this reduction—we recognise that mechanisation is in some way responsible—is that the young are leaving the industry? Taking the long-term view, is not that a rather serious matter?

Mr. Amory: It would be, and up to quite recently what the right hon. Member has referred to was taking place, but I am more hopeful now that the industry in general is retaining an increasing proportion of young men, and young men of a very good type.

Pig Progeny Testing Stations

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with the construction of the pig progeny testing stations; and when he anticipates these will be in operation.

Mr. Amory: The station at Selby should start full operations in June; those at Corsham, Letchworth and Sealand should all be ready to begin operations in October. I understand that the construction of the Scottish station at Bridge of Allan has begun and that it should be completed by the middle of next year.

Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is a most encouraging report? Will he make sure that nothing is done that might stop progress in this vital matter if farmers are to reduce their costs?

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree as to the importance of this project. I am most anxious to see the stations in operation because, as my hon. Friend will agree, their work is of a very long-term nature.

Wholesale and Retail Prices (Publication)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to implement the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Social and Economic Research regarding the publication of information relating to the main food trades and farmers' wholesale and retail prices.

Mr. Amory: I must observe the understanding that the results of castings inquiries for the food trades made during the period of price controls would not be published in any form. As regards information on prices much is already made available in a variety of ways, particularly wholesale prices of raw foodstuffs. I have considered the possibility of regular assembly and publication of this material in a single periodical, but the cost outweighs the advantages. But in association with the Committee on Social and Economic Research a guide to current statistical sources for food and agriculture is being prepared for publication.

Mr. Willey: While appreciating the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given, may I ask whether it indicates that his Department is now going to issue a quarterly bulletin, as was recommended by the Committee in another part of its Report?

Mr. Amory: Not in this connection.

Mr. Willey: I am sorry to pursue the point further, but does that mean that the figures will be available quarterly?

Mr. Amory: It depends on exactly which figures the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Not in general, but I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman could have a word with me afterwards and make quite clear, as I am not quite clear at present, to which figures he is referring.

Mr. Willey: I will have a word with the right hon. Gentleman afterwards, and meanwhile will ask him Question No. 14.

National Food Survey (Publication)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to expedite the publication of the National Food Survey.

Mr. Amory: The completion of the next Annual Report, for 1955, is being pressed forward and I am expecting that it will be published in the middle of this year. I am also hoping to follow this by publishing the main results of the Survey for 1956 and subsequent years at quarterly intervals, in addition to continuing the comprehensive annual reports.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a marked improvement, because these figures have been published far too late in the past, and if we are going to get them reasonably soon, it means that we can make much better use of them?

Mr. Amory: I believe that this is an improvement. Why I was cautious in my earlier reply was because the figures which we hope to make available quarterly in future will not be all the figures contained in the subsequent final report, though, I think, they will comprise the most important and most interesting of them.

Bread

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in view of the continuing increase in the price of bread, he will reimpose price control.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of wheat has gone down, but the price of flour has gone up, and that the milling combines, having bought up the largest bakeries, are making enormous profits out of


inferior bread? How long will he tolerate this scandalous profiteering now beginning to manifest itself with the shilling loaf?

Mr. Amory: I am aware of none of the things that the hon. Gentleman says, and, therefore, I think the second part of his Question does not arise.

Mr. Baldwin: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House in how many countries in the world except Great Britain it is possible for an unskilled worker to work for ten minutes and buy himself a pound of bread?

Mr. D. Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that some months ago he pooh-poohed the idea of the shilling loaf? How far from a shilling is it now?

Mr. Amory: Quite a considerable distance. The unsliced, unwrapped 1¾ lb. loaf is obtainable in most areas of the country at either 10½d. or 11d.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he cannot come down to the House and plead ignorance when he is in difficulties? We know that the price of bread generally will be 11d., and may even be 1s. at the end of next week in parts of the country.

Mr. Amory: I was not speculating about the future but was merely saying what are the facts at the present time.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further regulations he proposes to make regarding improvements in the quality of bread.

Mr. Amory: I will consider whether further regulations are needed when I receive the relevant report of the Food Standards Committee.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has become urgent, that the big combines are using a flour which is deliberately doped with stuff called G.M.S. in order to retain more water and thereby increase the weight of the loaf? Is he aware that in these circumstances we are getting steamed

cotton wool instead of honestly baked bread, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid the answer is again "No" to both parts of the Question.

Fish Prices (Suez Emergency Surcharge)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the commodities with which he is concerned have had a Suez emergency surcharge placed upon them.

Mr. Amory: A specific and temporary surcharge has been placed on some fish.

Mr. Jeger: In view of the rather strange economic theories which the Minister enunciated last week in suggesting that a 6s. surcharge on fish had no effect whatever on increasing the price, will he try to put a really big surcharge on every type of foodstuff in the hope that it will reduce prices?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman has not quoted me exactly, but in substance he has quoted me sufficiently accurately. The surcharge that was imposed has, to all intents and purposes, had no effect on prices, for the reason that I gave on the last occasion—that the market price has been substantially above the minimum price, plus the surcharge, and, if the hon. Gentleman examines it, he will find that that is not strange economics.

Land Drainage and Flood Prevention (European Countries)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the successful activities of other countries in land drainage and flood prevention; and whether he will facilitate, by the provision of grants in aid or otherwise, visits by British farmers to see what has been achieved in Continental countries.

Mr. Amory: I am aware of the land drainage and flood prevention work being done on the Continent. If British farmers wish to visit the Continent to see what has been done, my Department would be ready to advise them, but I am not empowered to give any financial assistance.

Mr. Jeger: Would the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what advice he would give, because farmers know, as he knows perfectly well, that magnificent land reclamation work has been done in Holland? What they want is some assistance in going to Holland, if possible arranged between his Department and the equivalent department in the Netherlands, so that there could be sponsored visits under the auspices of Government Departments?

Mr. Amory: The advice that I should be glad to give them would be as to where they would be most likely to see developments of interest to them, and I would make any arrangements I could with the Dutch authorities or any other Continental authorities with which they washed to make contact. A deputation from the River Boards' Association visited Holland in 1955, and my own drainage engineers and water supply engineers are in very close contact with their Continental colleagues.

Mr. Champion: While recognising that the Dutch have much to teach us in this connection, may I ask whether it would not be better for the Minister to put the Heneage Report into operation?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman knows that in many ways I should very much like to do that, but there are many practical difficulties.

Dried and Tinned Milk Imports

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of dried and tinned milk has been imported during the last three years; and what were the countries of origin.

Mr. Amory: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Crouch: May I express the hope that my right hon. Friend is now going to discourage the importing of large quantities of dried milk when we have such a surplus of home-produced milk in this country?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend knows that imports of foodstuffs from Commonwealth countries are almost entirely unrestricted at the present time.

Following is the reply:


IMPORTS OF DRIED &amp; CONDENSED MILK


—
1954
1955
1956 (provisional)


CONDENSED MILK
tons
tons
tons


Full cream Unsweetened





Australia
1
—
—


Eire
357
4
…


Denmark
102
92
82


Netherlands
56
110
67


U.S.A
1
…
—


Channel Islands
—
1
—


Total
517
207
149


Full cream Sweetened





Malaya
—
…
412*


Australia
2,032
1
3


Eire
13
2
1


Denmark
146
40
33


Netherlands
111
152
162


Switzerland
—
…
2


Italy
—
—
1


Total
2,302
195
614


Separated or Skimmed





Sweetened





Eire
742
463
390


Denmark
25
53
—


Netherlands
75
149
104


Total
842
665
494


Separated Unsweetened





Eire
—
—
—


W. Germany
—
—
4


Netherlands
—
—
6


Total
—
—
10


MILK POWDER





Whole Unsweetened





Australia
2,080
471
549


New Zealand
5,464
3,485
3,268


Eire
769
1,395
1,663


Sweden
…
2
72


Denmark
36
296
501


Netherlands
32
822
1,868


U.S.A
—
10
11


Total
8,381
6,481
7,932


Skimmed Unsweetened





Canada
—
—
70


Australia
8,728
6,232
13,733


New Zealand
31,006
18,676
25,386


Eire
11
207
1,912


Denmark
3
219
1,362


Netherlands
…
1,077
390


Belgium
—
111
263


U.S.A
…
—
4


Sweden
—
—
92


Total
39,748
26,522
43,212

—
1954
1955
1956 (provisional)



tons
tons
tons


Milk Powder Sweetened





New Zealand
637
545
454


Australia
—
121
26


Eire
—
9
18


Netherlands
—
—
…


U.S.A
—
—
1


Total
637
675
499


Buttermilk Powder, etc.





Unsweetened





Eire
—
1
…


Australia
1,148
603
1,082


New Zealand
2,641
5,037
8,301


Netherlands
91
5,764
3,034


Denmark
…
49
5


Belgium
—
35
10


Total
3,880
11,489
12,432


Other Preserved Milk Sweetened





Netherlands
6
39
6


Other Preserved Milk Unsweetened





Eire
—
—
—


* Re-export.


… = Negligible.


— = Nil.

Ice Cream

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of dairy produce is used in ice cream made by the large manufacturers.

Mr. Amory: I understand that a typical ice cream mix would include 10 per cent. of dairy products by weight.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the large amount of milk which we are producing today, he has any powers to advise the use of a greater quantity of dairy products in the making of ice cream?

Mr. Amory: The present standards order, which imposes a minimum of 7½ per cent., I think, of dairy products, is at present being reviewed by the Food Standards Committee. I do not know what the result of its deliberations will be.

Mr. H. Hynd: If there is no more than 10 per cent. of dairy products, of what does the other 90 per cent. consist?

Mr. Amory: Ten per cent. fat, which need not be a dairy product, 13 per cent. sugar, 2 per cent. cereal filler, ·9 per cent. of other components, and the rest water.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that farmhouse ice cream contains no water, but is practically all milk?

Mr. Amory: I know that there are certain brands of ice cream which contain considerably more than the 10 per cent. I have mentioned, and I would welcome the consumption of a bigger proportion of that type of ice cream.

Balancer Meals

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will encourage corn merchants and compounders of animal feeding stuffs to market a reliable balancer meal guaranteed by biological tests, which pig producers could mix with their home-grown cereals, so cheapening the costs of producing pig meat and leading to a saving in the charge on the taxpayer.

Mr. Amory: I am assured that there is an ample supply of balancer meals in a form suitable for pigs and other livestock, and I have no reason to doubt their reliability. No system of biological tests of proteins in feeding stuffs has yet been developed but work on this has been arranged by the Agricultural Research Council.

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while there are a number of balancer meals in which farmers have great confidence, there are others on the market which do not command the same confidence, and that if he can improve this situation he will be doing a great deal, through making better use of homegrown feeding stuffs, to bring about economy in imported feeding stuffs, thus saving foreign currency?

Mr. Amory: Would not my hon. Friend agree with me that the balancer rations which command confidence are those which are likely to be sold and that those which do not command confidence are not likely to find a sale at all?

Egg Marketing Board (Leaflets)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give particulars of the leaflet issued by


the Egg Marketing Board which states that a guarantee through a deficiency payments scheme is a practicable alternative to the scheme for an Egg Marketing Board on which producers are now being asked to vote; how many of these leaflets were printed; and how they are being circulated.

Mr. Amory: The Board has issued two leaflets entitled "Have you registered?" and "Your questions answered", which mention deficiency payments as an alternative form of guarantee. The printing and circulation of these leaflets is a domestic matter for the Board, but I understand that their aim has been to distribute sufficient copies to reach all producers affected by the Scheme.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that at present these documents are virtually secret documents, whereas the National Farmers' Union has given very wide circulation to a leaflet which suggests that producers must vote for this particular scheme, otherwise there is no chance of a guaranteed price? Will the Minister make absolutely sure that producers see the other leaflet?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that the hon. Member's statement is quite accurate. The leaflets issued by the N.F.U. which I have seen have called attention to the fact that the deficiency payment is an alternative but not one which they personally believe would be satisfactory.

Export of Cattle

Mr. Royle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that buyers from the Continent are attending auctions of fat cattle in this country paying prices in excess of ruling prices and exporting these cattle; and, in view of the fact that these cattle bear subsidy, if he will prohibit their export.

Mr. Amory: Prices of cattle normally rise at this time of the year and I understand that the present higher prices are restricting the export trade which appears to have declined since the peak last November and December. As regards the second part, I have set up a Committee to inquire into this export trade and I must now await its report.

Mr. Royle: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is right under any

circumstances that beef cattle should be transported alive to the Continent under conditions which we know are most undesirable, particularly when the beef subsidy and the calf subsidy have been paid for the encouragement of production for the home market? Is it right that we should be importing meat from the Argentine when we are exporting beef cattle on which subsidy has been paid? Can the right hon. Gentleman stop it?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member raises two rather different points, both of which I have referred to this Committee. The reply to the first part of the question is that I am taking every step I can to control the transport of these animals in this country and on shipboard to make sure that the conditions are satisfactory. As to the second part of the question, I said the other day and should like to repeat now that only a few of these cattle have attracted subsidy, and even in those cases I am satisfied that economically the trade is of advantage to this country.

Pig Recording Scheme (Annual Report)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the second Annual Report of the Pig Recording Scheme.

Mr. Amory: I hope to be able to publish it in June.

Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a great improvement on the previous report? Will he make sure that there is adequate staff in order that the delay in publishing these reports annually may be reduced?

Mr. Amory: Yes, if this date is achieved it will be a considerable improvement on last year.

Butter Consumption

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what change has been shown by his Department's food survey in the consumption of butter since the recent fall in price.

Mr. Amory: The latest available results of the National Food Survey relate to the latter part of 1956, whereas the fall in butter prices has occurred mainly since the beginning of 1957. It is therefore too early to assess what recent change in consumption, if any, may have taken place.

Mr. Hurd: Has my right hon. Friend any present-day judgment about total supplies and what the prospects are for the next months? Shall we have a continuing increase in supplies of butter?

Mr. Amory: I think that supplies of butter will be ample in the next few months.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Minister expect the consumption of butter to increase after what we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this week?

Mr. Amory: I have every hope that the consumption per head of butter will steadily increase so long as prices remain at anything like their present level.

Fatstock Guarantee Payments

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the future method proposed for arriving at the amount of deficiency payments for fatstock is the most economical method and the fairest for producers; and whether he will introduce a seasonal price similar to that in operation for wheat deficiency payments.

Mr. Amory: The proposed method for calculating fatstock guarantee payments from 25th March, which is embodied in the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1957, laid before the House on the 14th February, is based on seasonal scales of standard prices for cattle and sheep. I am satisfied that this method, which has the full support of representatives of the producers, is the best that can be devised in the light of experience since decontrol of meat and livestock.

Mr. Baldwin: While glad to know that there will be a seasonal average, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that a figure based on the rolling average for a month and on guesswork for the next month is the fairest and most economical way of arriving at the deficiency payment? If he is so satisfied, will he ask the first half-dozen farmers he meets in the market place, for they will tell him something different.

Mr. Amory: I think the answer to both questions is, "Yes". I am satisfied, but I will ask the first half-dozen farmers I meet.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Pigs (Virus Pneumonia)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will make a statement on the research into virus pneumonia in pigs.

Mr. Amory: Recent research has shown that a number of different causes give rise to the condition known as virus pneumonia in pigs. These are being studied at the Department of Animal Pathology, Cambridge, the Agricultural Research Council's Field Station, Compton and at the Glasgow University. Other animal research institutes are building up virus-free herds of pigs free from all symptoms of this condition.

Mr. Crouch: If a solution can be found for virus pneumonia, would that make a great difference in our production of bacon?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I think it would. The loss through pneumonia in pigs is very large indeed.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that the figures which the Minister has given recently about the amount of public money spent on research into pig diseases is very small compared with the losses each year to the industry from diseases? When does he intend to do something about that?

Mr. Amory: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said, but as I told him then—or, if I did not tell him, as I should have liked to tell him—the limitation at present in this matter of research, as in most other matters of agricultural research, is not so much a financial limitation as one which arises, from the scarcity of qualified men able to devote themselves to the research. I should be glad to see the scale of this research work expanded.

Milk (Quality)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research is being conducted into the causes of a persistent failure of cows to produce milk of the required solids-not-fat standard.

Mr. Amory: Research along genetical, physiological and nutritional lines is in progress at the National Institute for Research in Dairying, Reading; the Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr; the Rowett Research Institute Aberdeen; the three Scottish Colleges of Agriculture; and at Edinburgh University.

Mr. Champion: Has the Minister any idea when we may expect some results on this matter, particularly on the solids-not-fat point, which is causing difficulty in the industry?

Mr. Amory: In common with a great many other people, I wish I knew when results would come along.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Disabled Persons

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Labour how many registered disabled persons have been unemployed for a continuous period of more than three months.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): Twenty-four thousand and forty-two on 10th December, 1956.

Mr. Peart: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the figure indicates that there is still a pressing problem, and a need to encourage organisations like Remploy to extend their work and to build new factories?

Mr. Carr: I certainly would not be complacent about the problem. There is a small increase since last year. There has also been some increase in employment in Remploy.

Mr. Peart: Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no contraction of the work, and that new factories will be developed, if necessary?

Mr. Carr: I have, in previous debates, given a number of assurances about the future of Remploy, and there is nothing I can add to what I have already said.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that there is a continuing addition to the number of disabled in the mining industry. Is he paying special attention to them?

Mr. Carr: I think that I can say "Yes" to that question, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a special point in mind I shall be glad if he will put down a Question about it.

Guild of Insurance Officials

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he is aware that for two years the Municipal Mutual Insurance Limited have refused to meet representatives of the Guild of Insurance Officials to which a majority of their employees belong; and if he will use his offices to attempt to secure such a meeting, recognition of the union, and settlement of the dispute;
(2) what reasons were given him by the Municipal Mutual Insurance Limited for refusing either to meet representatives of the Guild of Insurance Officials or to hold a ballot among their employees as to whether they wished the union to be recognised by the undertaking in wage and other negotiations.

Mr. Redhead: asked the Minister of Labour whether the attention of his Department has been drawn to the dispute arising from the refusal of the Municipal Mutual Insurance Company Limited to accord recognition to the Guild of Insurance Officials, a registered trade union claiming to represent 70 per cent. of the employees of the company; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The Guild first sought the assistance of my Department in 1955 and my conciliation officer has been in touch with the parties on several occasions since. The company is not willing to recognise or meet representatives of the Guild as it considers that the existing staff consultative committee is operating satisfactorily. My officer met the company again on Monday, when he was informed that its views had not changed. He will, of course, take any opportunity of assisting in this matter.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the union's conciliatory attitude, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is bad for industrial relations for the company to behave so arrogantly? Will he have another go at it?

Mr. Macleod: As my Answer indicates, I am very ready to help if I possibly can, but one of the major difficulties here is that the Minister of Labour has no standing in a matter of recognition between a union and an employer, nor is such a matter generally arbitrable.

Mr. Redhead: Does not the Minister agree that it is an exceedingly regrettable feature that a company of this character, with very large associations with the vast number of local authorities, should behave in this way, having regard to the fact that local authorities normally observe the conditions of the fair wages clause? Is not that a point which his Department might press upon the company in this matter?

Mr. Macleod: It is perfectly true that this company specialises in local authority insurance. It is also true, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, that there is no national negotiating machinery, in general, for insurance staffs.

Mr. Bowles: May I, as a life member of the Guild, ask the Minister whether, when he retires from office and becomes, possibly, chairman of this company, he will then take steps to see that this Guild is recognised?

Mr. Robens: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that on this side of the House we have very strong objections to company unions, and that that is obviously the case here, and that it would be as well if he could use his influence perhaps rather more than he has done in this matter, otherwise it will, at some time, be a question of a law in relation to the recognition of qualified trade unions?

Mr. Macleod: I take note, without comment, of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but, as I have indicated in response to two previous supplementary questions, first of all, as he knows very well, the Minister of Labour has no standing in this sort of dispute. Secondly, this practice is in no way exceptional in the insurance field; indeed, it is the common rule.

Coal Mining (Hungarian Refugees)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour how many Hungarian refugees have been taken on in the coal mining industry.

Mr. Iain Macleod: About 3,900 Hungarian refugees have been taken on by the National Coal Board as potential coal miners.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While appreciating that, and also appreciating that there has been a substantial rise in coal production this year, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would confirm or deny that the South Yorkshire coal miners' lodges are refusing to take on these refugees? If that is so, will not he try to persuade them to take them on?

Mr. Macleod: For the moment, these refugees are undertaking, as of course they must, a course in English. After that, it will be necessary for them to have the usual preliminary training as coal miners. They are at present drawing surface rates of pay and are not actually mining coal. One hopes that in this period the difficulties that may arise about future employment will be ironed out. Many people want to do that, and I think that we can, on the whole, leave it to them.

Mr. Jay: While I share those hopes of the Minister, may I ask him whether he can tell us how many Hungarian refugee doctors have started to practise?

Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that there is a national agreement by which the miners' leaders are under an obligation to recommend the acceptance of the Hungarians, and is it not a bad thing for hon. Members on this side of the House to try to jeopardise what is being done in this matter?

Mr. Macleod: I have answered a number of Questions on this subject. I have taken a completely consistent line, as the House knows. I very much want to see the employment of these men—I know that is the general view and the general wish—and I again express the view that we have the best chance of achieving that if we leave the problem to those most closely in touch with it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Further to the supplementary question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), may I ask the Minister whether he recalls that in the debate that we had before Christmas on the Hungarian situation, I particularly asked that


some steps should be taken by the Government to make it easier for Hungarian refugee doctors to practise, and was given an assurance that the Government were going into that matter; and can he give any further information about it?

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that does not arise out of this Question, nor is that matter within my province, but I will certainly take note of the point and bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Wages (Payment by Cheque)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Labour if he has now reached a decision on the views of the Trades Union Congress and other organisations against the payment of wages by cheque; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In present circumstances I have decided not to proceed with legislation enabling wages to be paid by cheque.

Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour the unemployment figures in Coventry up to the latest convenient date in February; and what proportion this bears to the figure for January.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Three thousand, five hundred and fifty-one at 11th February, an increase of 16 per cent. compared with 14th January.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that, as everyone in Coventry knows, these figures have shown a steady increase month after month, and will he himself come to Coventry to discuss with the trade unions and the employers the real situation that we are facing in that city?

Mr. Macleod: I do not want to be ungallant in declining, at the moment, the hon. Lady's invitation. Many hon. Members who have motor industries in their constituencies have extended similar invitations to me, and it just is not possible to accept them all; but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been to the Coventry and Birmingham areas twice in the last few weeks, and I am closely in touch with the situation. I shall not forget the invitation, and I will try to come sometime, but I cannot give any promise about the immediate future.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour the number of vacancies registered at the Coventry Employment Exchange on 10th December, 1956, 14th January, 1957, and 11th February, 1957.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The total numbers of vacancies notified to the Coventry Employment Exchange and Youth Employment Office and remaining unfilled were 1,024 at 12th December, 775 at 9th January and 723 at 6th February.

Miss Burton: Will not the Minister agree that it is a very serious position when month by month in Coventry we have an increase in the number of wholly unemployed and a decrease in the number of vacancies available? Would he not agree, as a matter of arithmetic, that if all these vacancies were filled we should still have a great number of unemployed? What steps do the Government propose to take to help the situation?

Mr. Macleod: I agree that the situation, as I have often said, is an anxious one. It is true that in Coventry and in many areas in the country the number of vacancies is now substantially below the number of unemployed. As I told the hon. Lady, I think a week or so ago, I am making a special inquiry into one or two of these matters, and I think she has a Question down for next week. Perhaps she will await the answer.

Miss Burton: Without wishing to be ungallant either, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the position in Coventry is a great deal worse than in other places, because we depend on the motor industry? Is he further aware that the visit of the Parliamentary Secretary did not do the slightest good at all, and that I tried to put down a Question about it, and was not able to do so?

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is anxiety in Coventry over the duration of unemployment affecting many workers; and if he will state how many of the 2,288 at 10th December, 1956, the 3,066 at 14th January, 1957, and of those unemployed at the latest convenient date in February, have been out of work for four months or more.

Mr. Iain Macleod: An analysis according to duration of unemployment is obtained only at quarterly dates, the latest


figures being those for 10th December. Of the total of 2,228 registered as unemployed in Coventry at that date, 513 had been continuously on the registers for more than three months and 167 for more than six months. A subdivision at four months is not available.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that my information is that the duration of unemployment in Coventry of over four months and over six months is steadily increasing? Is the Minister aware that the figures for February show an even greater increase? In view of all that, is the right hon. Gentleman still not prepared to do something special for that city?

Mr. Macleod: The Question, as indeed my Answer shows, brings out the fact that the length of unemployment of the vast majority is fairly short-term. I have already answered in part as to whether special measures should be introduced, and I am answering in full later. In fairness, I think I should say, in response to what the hon. Lady said earlier about the visit of my Parliamentary Secretary, that I know that that is not so. I have had most excellent accounts from my regional officers and others of the value of that visit, and I am certain that we obtained a good deal of benefit from it.

Retail Prices Index

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Labour what was the percentage increase in the interim index of retail prices between the monthly average for 1948 and 1949 and between 1949 and 1950; and what was the corresponding increase for 1956 over 1955.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The figures are: 2·8 per cent., 3·1 per cent., and 5·0 per cent. respectively. The increases during each of those three years were 3·5, 3·2 and 3·0 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Jay: Is it not plain from those figures that the Minister was misleading the House in a recent debate when he said that the rise in the cost of living was less last year then in any of the previous years?

Mr. Macleod: I am afraid that this is one of the very rare occasions on which both the right hon. Gentleman and I are both right. What I said to the House was that the rise in the index was less

than in any year since 1953, and the second part of my Answer shows that that is so. But the right hon. Gentleman is equally right. If one takes a comparison of the average of the monthly figures over 24 months, year by year, that does alter the figures, as the first part of my Answer indicates.

Public Service Vehicles, London (Drivers and Conductors)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies exist in the London area for drivers and conductors of motor buses and trolley buses.

Mr. Iain Macleod: On 9th January, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,500 vacancies notified to local offices in the greater London area were unfilled. They were for drivers and conductors required for coaches as well as for buses and trolley buses.

Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London Transport bus depot at Fulwell recently refused to take on any more coloured workers, on the alleged ground of the danger of unemployment? Would my right hon. Friend agree that that reason is not valid, and does it not look like an unfortunate example of colour discrimination?

Mr. Macleod: I should like to look into the special case which my hon. Friend has mentioned. Perhaps he will have a word with me about it. Certainly the figure showing that number of vacancies would seem to indicate that that reason, if it was given, cannot be a valid one.

Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that for many years we have had Government policy designed to reduce the number of vacancies below that of unemployed? Now that the Government have had such astonishing success in this respect, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate any change of policy so far as vacancies are concerned?

Mr. Macleod: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get into this Question a supplementary question that he tried to get in a few Questions ago.

Strikes

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Labour how many working days were lost in 1956 through strikes.

Mr. Iain Macleod: About 2,083,000. A review of the figures for 1956 is given in the January issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Captain Pilkington: Could my right hon. Friend give any estimate of what this costs the country?

Mr. Macleod: No, I do not think that is possible, but there are a couple of matters arising from these figures that I might point out to my hon. and gallant Friend. First, the figure for 1956 is less than the average of the previous ten years or so, and this reverses a trend that had been going against us for about seven years. Secondly, if we divide this figure, which sounds most formidable, of 2 million man-days among the working population, it comes to 45 minutes a year.

Mr. Robens: Is it not a fact that there are more days lost through the common cold than by industrial disputes? Is it not also a fact that there are fewer days lost in disputes in this country than in the United States of America and many other industrial countries?

Mr. Macleod: In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I think that sickness accounts for about 130 times as many lost days as are lost by industrial disputes. The reply to the second part of the supplementary question is that the number of days lost in America, taking man-days per thousand workers, is about seven or eight times worse.

Company, Brentford

Mr. Robens: asked the Minister of Labour what report his factory inspector has made on working conditions at the factory of the Durable Rubber Manufacturing Company Limited, Great Western Road, Brentford, Middlesex.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The factory was visited twice in 1956 and on 4th January of this year. Certain points are being followed up by the Inspectorate and I will be writing to the right hon. Gentleman to give him details.

Mr. Robens: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the strike which commenced on 3rd December, 1956, at the Durable Rubber

Manufacturing Company Limited, Great Western Road, Brentford, Middlesex; and if the help if his Department's conciliation officers has yet been requested.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Some 80 employees of the company withdrew their labour on 3rd December following the dismissal of one of the workers. Before the strike the trade union concerned had sought the assistance of my regional officer in efforts to secure a meeting with the company to discuss recognition and conditions of employment. The firm refused to meet the union and has since adhered to that decision. My regional officer will keep in touch with the parties and take any opportunity of assisting towards a settlement.

Mr. Robens: Is not this firm doing business with local authorities and other concerns which observe the fair wages clause, and would not the right hon. Gentleman urge upon his local officials to make representations to the firm that the recognition of this union is reasonable? Is it not a fact that this strike could easily be ended if recognition of this trade union were accepted and if arrangements were made for a proper wage agreement to be entered into?

Mr. Macleod: I believe that the firm makes mainly hot water bottles. I do not know how many it makes for local authorities. No doubt, there are local authority contracts, and I take that point into account. This really is a matter of principle which is linked with my Answer to an earlier Question, and I am bound to say that in these matters I, as the Minister of Labour, have no standing, and it is right that that should be so.

MIDDLE EAST (SOVIET PROPOSALS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for discussing the Soviet proposals for the Middle East with President Eisenhower.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As forecast in my reply to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) on 14th February, consultations on the Soviet proposals are now taking place with our American and French allies. The normal diplomatic channel seems appropriate to this process.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Prime Minister say whether he is going to make a statement on Government policy with reference to the Soviet proposals before he goes to Bermuda?

The Prime Minister: The Question suggests that I should delay considering the proposals until I have gone to Bermuda. I do not think it would be right to defer such study. I think we should carry on the studies now.

Mr. P. Williams: In view of the statement made by President Eisenhower yesterday, and in view of the reports on the tape today that the Foreign Office accepts the Eisenhower doctrine as being the basis of British foreign policy, can my right hon. Friend make a comment on the statement made by the President of the United States yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen the report on the tape, but this is a matter of how to arrange for a proper reply to be made to the Soviet proposals which were sent to the three Powers jointly. I think it is right that we should consult together jointly before deciding what is the right reply to send.

Mr. Gaitskell: Without entering into the merits of Mr. Shepilov's proposals, may I ask whether the Prime Minister would not agree that in the end we really must discuss the Middle East situation with the Russians and our allies if there is to be any hope of a permanent settlement?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. The first thing is to make a courteous and correct reply to the Note which has been sent to us. In order to do that, we must consider together, and it seemed to me that the right thing was not to wait for the Bermuda meeting but to arrange for consultations through the normal diplomatic channels.

Mr. Bevan: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, will he in the meantime, before any conclusion is reached, try to prevent the Foreign Office giving any indication whatsoever of the attitude towards these proposals? Is it not desirable to keep the whole thing clear until he himself can make a statement to the House about it?

The Prime Minister: The public Departments are sometimes pressed for

their views. Sometimes complaints are made because they do no give them. I think that this matter has been handled with a proper degree of reticence and moderation.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not true that they ought not to have views about such a matter until the Government themselves have formed a view?

The Prime Minister: I think it is quite reasonable that if a Minister is pressed—I do not know what statements the right hon. Gentleman is referring to—

Mr. Bevan: Those referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams).

The Prime Minister: We are talking about expressions of views by the Foreign Secretary or the Foreign Office. So far as I know, the Foreign Secretary has expressed no view on this matter, and we are now consulting as to the proper reply that we should make.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if any question of sanctions against Israel forms part of our answer to the Shepilov proposals, it is unlikely to be welcome to people in this country?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. What I am dealing with here is a Note which was presented to us one morning and published that afternoon—a serious and long Note—to which we must prepare a proper reply. The right thing to do is to consult with the two other countries to whom the Note was addressed.

Mr. H. Morrison: But Israel is bound to be involved, I should have thought, in any discussions with the Soviet Union or other Powers with reference to the general problem of the Middle East. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House, which most Members on both sides would welcome, that we are in no way committed to follow the declaration of President Eisenhower in this matter, or the tactical activities of the Secretary of State in the United States?

The Prime Minister: That is quite another question. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the Note sent by Mr. Shepilov when he was Foreign Minister. That covers a very


wide field. It has nothing to do with this question which is now before the United Nations. What we have to do is to study and try to make a joint reply to that Note.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask for your guidance and assistance. Yesterday, I tabled a Question, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government have taken or intend to take to implement their declared policy of doubling the people's standard of living. That Question was ruled out by the Table on the ground that it would appear to be a matter for debate. Subsequently, there was a reference by the Table Office as follows:
the reference is presumably to Mr. Butler's statement, when Chancellor, about doubling the standard of living in 25 years.
If you look through the Order Paper today, or on any day, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, with respect, that you will find that nine out of ten Questions are on matters which may be matter for debate. Indeed, it is true to say that many hon. Members do, in fact, say that they will raise a matter in debate. I should like to ask upon what principle such a Question as I have upon the Order Paper today, Question No. 46, which certainly relates to a matter which is or may be matter for debate, is accepted, yet the other one, which is vital to the people, because it refers to doubling their standard of living, is not accepted? Surely it is a vital Question and ought to be allowed.
Finally, if the Table rules out a Question, what rights has an hon. Member who feels aggrieved to raise it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. Member. I have had no notice of this. If the hon. Member will bring me his Question, I will have a look at it, and I will make inquiries into it. Otherwise, it is taking up the time of the House at this moment, and I really could not give a useful answer on the subject.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Sir. Since this matter is to be looked into by you, Mr. Speaker, and as we now know that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiated his

predecessor on this question, and since the present Chancellor seems to have repudiated his predecessor, is it not—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the House will keep order. I am waiting to hear the point of order.

Mr. Wilson: In view of all that I have just mentioned, would it be right for the Table to preclude a Question on this subject? If it is right for the Table to preclude that Question, would it be in order for my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), instead of asking about doubling the standard of living in twenty-five years, to ask about the doubling of the cost of living in twenty-five years?

Mr. Speaker: All these matters are really hypothetical 4t the moment. I really must decline to give an answer on the matter until I have had a chance of studying it. Otherwise, I should not be using the time of the House to the best advantage.

Mr. H. Morrison: Mr. H. Morrison rose—

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Herbert Morrison.

Mr. Morrison: Further to the point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"]—raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), may I say that I appreciate very well, Mr. Speaker, that you wish for time to consider the matter, and that we all, including my hon. Friend, understand that? But may I ask you to take into account in formulating a Ruling that some of us are very surprised about this Ruling by the Table? Is it not the case that all Questions are, in a way, a form of restricted debate, and that supplementary questions, in particular, are a form of restricted debate?—and what we should do without them, I do not know.
Therefore, may I ask you to take into account that, by their very nature, Questions and supplementary questions, though not open to full debate in the ordinary sense, are, nevertheless, a form of clash between the two sides of the House and are, therefore, a form of debate?

Mr. Speaker: I shall, of course, endeavour to take all relevant considerations into account. I am aware that Question Time is perhaps too frequently perverted into a form of debate, but that is not a process which I should deem it my duty to encourage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY—Supply [3rd Allotted Day].
Committee stage of the Civil Vote on Account, which it is proposed to take formally.
A debate will take place on an Opposition Motion relating to Retirement Pensions and National Assistance Scales.
TUESDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—Committee stage of the House of Commons Disqualification Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Public Trustee (Fees) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Cinematograph Films Bill [Lords].
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Third Reading of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill.
THURSDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY—Debate on the Report and Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1955.
FRIDAY, 1ST MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Government have now published a White Paper on the European Common Market, and, in view of the anxieties felt, I think, in all parts of the House that some of the safeguards mentioned in the recent debate by hon. Members may have been lost sight of in the recent negotiations in Paris, would the Lord Privy Seal undertake to provide Government time for a debate on the White Paper on the European Common Market, so enabling the Chancellor of

the Exchequer to give the House a full account of what went on in the negotiations in Paris?

Mr. Butler: The subject is, of course, of great importance to the House. We are now at a time of year when the business is very congested, and I cannot give an absolute undertaking about Government time; but I will give an undertaking that we will discuss this through the usual channels.

Mr. H. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider the chance of an early foreign affairs debate, because some of the statements made in America recently are thoroughly objectionable, I believe, to most hon. Members in the House? I believe that the suggestion of forcing Israel back without proper guarantees for her future is not acceptable to most hon. Members.

Mr. Butler: That matter, also, will be considered by my right hon. Friends and myself. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary returns tonight from his visit to Portugal, and I will discuss this matter with him.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the Government's piecemeal announcements about defence proposals, can the Lord Privy Seal now say when we are likely to have the Defence White Paper and the subsequent debate upon it?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give the exact date, but it will be towards the end of the coming month. The question of a debate must be considered in the light of the date of the publication of the Defence White Paper, which will be produced directly it is ready.

Mr. Nabarro: May I allude to Thursday's business, the debate on the National Coal Board? Is it not a fact that it will be extraordinarily difficult to discuss the affairs of the Coal Board, and the massive capital investment involved, without the long-awaited statement on Government policy on atomic energy? As this matter has been pressed from both sides of the House almost weekly since the beginning of December, will it be possible for the statement to be made before the debate on the Coal Board?

Mr. Butler: I have all the previous references to requests for this debate, but I cannot give an absolute undertaking. I


can only tell my hon. Friend that this is one of the days set aside for discussion of nationalised industries. I realise that it will be important to discuss this matter against the background of the development of atomic power, but I cannot give an undertaking that the full policy will be announced by that date.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that the Defence White Paper will be delayed, does it not necessarily follow that the Service Estimates themselves will also be delayed and, therefore, increase the congestion of business at this time of year? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Service Estimates will come forward in the normal course, as in previous years, or whether they will have to await publication of the Defence White Paper?

Mr. Butler: We have been into this in some detail with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, through the usual channels, when giving an account to the Leader of the Opposition of how we thought the days would fall out. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will discuss with his right hon. Friend the information that we have given in detail. I, too, shall be ready to do so, if that is desired.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: While thanking my right hon. Friend for undertaking to discuss with the Foreign Secretary the possibility of an early foreign affairs debate, may I remind him that there is very great anxiety about the events of the last 24 hours, events which include a statement from a Foreign Office spokesman which is apparently in contradiction to what the Foreign Secretary said on 11th February? There is very great anxiety about the events of the coming week-end and a possible decision which may have to be taken. Will my right hon. Friend consider this with his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when he returns?

Mr. Butler: The advantage of these interventions is that they enable us to be aware of the feeling which exists and of which we must take account, but I cannot go further than saying that I will discuss that with the Foreign Secretary and with the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is on the Order Paper a Motion on Commonwealth unity, which is signed by many hon. Members? When may we have a debate on that subject? It is urgent because we feel that we should know the policy of the Government on this matter and there may be a lead on it before the Prime Minister commits the country to any new European commitments.

[That this House, believing in the unity and strength of the British Commonwealth, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions with other Commonwealth Governments with a view to the setting up of a Commonwealth Council, comprising a Ministerial Committee and a Consultative Assembly, which would meet regularly to discuss problems affecting the political, economic and social development of the Commonwealth.]

Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister is well aware of the terms of that Motion, which I have before me. It will take some time to develop a policy on the European Free Trade Area and the House may be assured that views on Commonwealth unity will not be forgotten in the course of those discussions.

Mr. Bevan: To return to the question of a debate on foreign affairs, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that foreign affairs are now causing a considerable amount of anxiety? We have just heard from the Prime Minister that he is to discuss with our allies what proposals shall be agreed about the Middle East.

The Prime Minister: "What reply".

Mr. Bevan: A reply cannot be empty of proposals—I hope.
My point is that we are considerably embarrassed. The Government themselves took action in the Middle East without consulting the United States, so we are not now in a position to reproach President Eisenhower for making statements himself. Will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless try to indicate to the United States that it is very undesirable that the United States should be issuing statements about policy without consulting its allies? Surely we ought to try to put an end to this anarchy as soon as possible.

Mr. Butler: It is very important, when answering business questions, not to commit myself or my right hon. Friends on subjects of Government policy. All I can do is to say that I will undertake to pay attention to the obvious feeling in the House on the foreign situation, and certain statements which have been made, and discuss the matter with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, when he returns tonight.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that even if, as alleged, Her Majesty's Government did make a mistake in the Middle East—I say, as alleged—that is no reason why the House should condone any mistake made by President Eisenhower? The sooner we have a debate on this subject, to clarify the issue, the better.

TRANSPORT, NORTH-EAST AREA (ADJOURNMENT DEBATE)

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Last night there was a rather prolonged debate on the affairs of the North-East. My attention has been directed to a statement made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) which appears in HANSARD. He said:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understood me.
He was referring to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport.
His hon. Friends have expressed themselves on many occasions, especially the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). On every occasion they have pressed for a tunnel and opposed the bridge. That is the point.
The discussion was about the provision of a tunnel or bridge across the Tyne.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central also said:
Would he also convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that hon. Members from the North-East, with the hon. Members who have spoken here tonight, represent very nearly 500,000 electors, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House are unanimous in their opposition to a bridge?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 556.]
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central had no authority to make any such statement on my behalf. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where was the hon. Lady

last night?"] I was not consulted about my views. I have made them plain to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know the opinion of other Conservative Members from the North-East Coast, but I am sure that it is not in accordance with the traditions of the House that hon. Members opposite should impute views to hon. Members on this side of the House.
I do not want to make heavy weather of this. [Laughter.] I fully realise that hon. Members opposite were very elated at the bit of luck which came their way, and I should be the last person to deny anybody the right to take advantage of any bit of luck that may come his way. What I want to ensure is that my views should be recorded accurately. Am I not allowed to have protection from you, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of this kind? I do not mind whether there is a tunnel or a bridge, as long as we have some form of communication between North and South.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite unable to guide the hon. Lady through that labyrinth. I was present last night at the debate on the Adjournment. The debate was raised by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), and was to be on the subject of road conditions at Framwellgate Moor. The debate extended itself into a discussion of a Tyne tunnel and bridge. I think that this is another example of the inconvenience which is caused to hon. Members when, on the Motion for the Adjournment, matters are raised of which notice has not been given, so that hon. Members who are interested in those matters do not know and so, perhaps, do not attend.

Mr. Short: I am the Member referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady was kind enough to send me a letter telling me that she would raise this matter today, and ended her letter by saying that she was going to enjoy herself when she raised it. Far be it from me to deprive the hon. Lady of any enjoyment—[HON. MEMBERS: "On the bridge or in the tunnel?"]—either on the bridge or in the tunnel. I do not know how much fun she gets. The hon. Lady has missed a good deal, but it is a bit unfair to take it out on me. I should have thought it an abuse


of the rules of order of the House to raise a point of order merely to get a bit of enjoyment out of it.
The hon. Lady makes two allegations against me, and I think that I am entitled to answer them. She first accuses me of discourtesy in not informing her that I was going to raise that matter.

Dame Irene Ward: I did not.

Mr. Short: As the hon. Lady knows, the debate arose suddenly. It was, therefore, very difficult to inform the hon. Lady about it. In any case, as, on the whole, my remarks were complimentary rather than derogatory, I should not have thought that that was a very great offence. Technically, I suppose, there was an offence, and for that I apologise.
Secondly, the hon. Lady was at great pains to prove that I misrepresented her. I have been reading through the record of all her comments on this topic in the last five years. I shall not read them all to the House. However, on a great many occasions the hon. Lady has expressed herself in no uncertain terms to various Ministers of Transport, to the whole succession of Ministers of Transport, in favour of a tunnel—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go into all that.

Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to get clear. It arises from what you said just now. If an hon. Member catches your eye on the Motion for the Adjournment he is perfectly entitled to speak on any matter that he desires to raise, provided it does not involve legislation, is he not?

Mr. Speaker: That is true.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said is perfectly true, but past Speakers as well as I have from time to time pointed out that inconvenience arises when a subject of which no notice has been given is raised on the Motion for the Adjournment. That is true as a matter of practice. What the right hon. Gentleman said is quite right, viewing the matter strictly as one of order. Thus, I did not attempt to stop the

subject of last night's debate being discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is a tradition in the House that when an hon. Member desires to raise a matter on the Adjournment he does, if there is time, inform the Minister concerned, but is an hon. Member who wishes to raise a subject on the Adjournment under a strict obligation to try to think of every other hon. Member who may be interested in it and to inform him?

Mr. Speaker: I do not put the matter as high as that, but I say that this sort of thing does happen when subjects are raised without notice. Afterwards, hon. Members complain that they had no notice of them.

Mr. H. Wilson: Mr. H. Wilson rose—

Dame Irene Ward: Am I not entitled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must keep order in the House. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wilson: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the precedent which seems to have become established in the last ten minutes, are we now to take it that if, by any mischance, any hon. Member on this side of the House—I do not consider that this is likely—should be absent from an important debate he will then have the right, on a point of order the next day, to make the speech that he otherwise would have made in the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I am very glad that that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared to me that the hon. Lady for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), by raising a point of order, was making a speech on the Tyne tunnel. I hope that no Member of the House will abuse the raising of a point of order.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked for your guidance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had my guidance. She has got what she wanted to say on the record. I think that that is all she wanted to do.

Mr. Popplewell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what may be termed your castigation of hon.


Members, and your saying that they were wrong to raise matters on the Adjuornment as they did, in fairness to myself and to others I would point out that it was I who raised the question last night of the Tyne tunnel, but that I began my remarks by apologising to the Minister for raising the matter somewhat suddenly, and by admitting that I knew he could not give me a complete answer then and there, and I said that I hoped he would consider the matter and eventually write to me about it. Surely that was well in accordance with the custom of the House.
May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to interpret the Ruling you have just given it will be very difficult indeed for anybody to move far from the very narrow point of which notice has been given for an Adjournment debate?

Mr. Speaker: I said nothing in castigation of, or even of reflection on, the hon. Member. I said only that my experience has been, as it was of all past Speakers, too, that when subjects are introduced in debate on the Adjournment without notice having been given of them they are very often followed by complaints by other hon. Members. That is all I said. I took no steps to prevent the hon. Member from mentioning his topic. He conducted himself in the matter with perfect propriety. However, I warn the House that when subjects are raised without notice that causes inconvenience and very often trouble afterwards.

GHANA (MEMBERSHIP OF COMMONWEALTH)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the forthcoming independence of Ghana.
As the House knows, the Ghana Independence Bill received the Royal Assent on 7th February. The effect of this Measure is to provide that as from 6th March Ghana becomes a fully independent sovereign State within the British Commonwealth. I am glad to be able to say that after consultation with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers they have all agreed that Ghana shall, as from 6th March, be recognised as a Member of the Commonwealth.
The importance of this occasion, which brings the first British dependency in tropical Africa to membership of the Commonwealth, will be emphasised by the visit to Accra for the Ghana independence celebrations of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent who, with Her Majesty's gracious consent, will represent the Queen at the celebrations. The House will. I know, share the pleasure of the Government and people of the United Kingdom and, indeed, of the Government and people of Ghana, that Her Majesty is to be represented in this way.
I am also able to announce that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will be represented by a delegation led by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal, and including my noble Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, and the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Ghana. The Government intend to mark the occasion with an appropriate gift to the Government of Ghana. I am sure that it will be the wish of the House to make a gift to the Parliament of Ghana. In accordance with custom, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, at a suitable time after Independence Day, move the appropriate resolution.
Arrangements are also being made for representation at the ceremonies of the General Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and of the United Kingdom Branch of the Association. This latter delegation will consist of my noble Friend Lord Dundee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). The British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union will be represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).
The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom will be represented by a cruiser, "H.M.S. Ceylon," with a Royal Marine detachment embarked; by a frigate, "H.M.S. Mounts Bay," and by detachments of the Royal Air Force, including four Valiant aircraft.
All other Commonwealth Governments will be represented at the Independence ceremonies to which certain of them will, in addition, be sending representatives or units of their Armed Forces.

Mr. Gaitskell: In warmly welcoming, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the statement made by the Prime Minister, may I say how particularly glad we are that Ghana is to become, from 6th March, a member of the Commonwealth? We particularly welcome the visit of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. May I say, also, that we shall strongly support the proposal that the House should make an appropriate gift to the Parliament of Ghana? Will the Prime Minister consider moving an appropriate Resolution of congratulation and best wishes in the House on 6th March?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that. I think that we should conform to the customary tradition. I understood that, in the past, it was done after Independence Day—that is, the moving of the Motion by the Leader of the House. As to whether we should have another Resolution, I will certainly consider whether that should be taken on the actual day.

Mr. Bowles: Will the Government of South Africa be represented?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir L. Plummer: Will they be fully represented at all the ceremonies?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. They are to be represented by a Minister.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill, as amended, may be considered immediately after the re-committal of the Bill and Report thereof, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT)

4.1 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move,
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
These Regulations deal with a matter that has been before the House from time to time for at least ten years. Indeed, it has a much longer history than that, for questions of the speed limit for goods vehicles of various kinds have been debated in the House since the original Road Traffic Act was passed in 1930. Furthermore, this particular matter of the raising of the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles has been brought forward a great many times, but no decision has been reached. I think that I would carry the whole House with me if I said that it is time we tried to grapple with what is admittedly a very difficult problem.
I remember that when Mr. Alfred Barnes was Minister of Transport he said, in a speech in the House on 22nd March, 1951:
If, in an industry, the employers and trade unions do not accept their responsibilities, then, after a reasonable time, we must make a decision irrespective of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1627]
Those were very brave words. No doubt for the best of reasons, which I certainly understand, they were not implemented.
The understanding of this issue requires at least a brief look at its history. Therefore, I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I made a few general remarks on the broad issue before coming to the actual details of these Regulations. This matter was, of course, raised during our proceedings on the Road Traffic Act. It can be no novelty to the House, or, indeed, to the interests concerned in it—the trade unions and the employers—because on 30th May last year, nearly twelve months ago, I gave a plain assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that I would proceed with this matter. Therefore, I think that today's proceedings can be no surprise to anybody.
Let us look for a moment at the history of the matter and try to see why it has lain before the House for about ten years. The first proposal on what one might call this current issue was made in 1944 by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the National Road Transport Federation. It was that the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles should be increased to 30 m.p.h. The proposal even then had strong support. It is worth noting that the Committee on Road Safety at that time saw no objection to it in practice, although, of course, the braking systems and general mechanical efficiency of motor vehicles were certainly nothing like as good then as they are today.
I do not want to disguise what I think has been one of the main difficulties in making a change in the speed limit. Although most hon. Members would agree that the speed limit is honoured more in the breach than in the observance all over the country, and we see plenty of examples of that on the roads, nevertheless a change raises the difficult issue of schedules and, therefore, a difficult issue for both the unions and the employers.
It is fair to say that the problem has always been that the employers were willing to give certain general assurances but the unions usually, and, I think, quite fairly, wanted more specific assurances. Then there has also been the objection, which I think I can deal with, that on the ground of road safety the speed limit should be retained at its present level of 20 m.p.h.
I should like to deal with these general issues. First, I think that it is certainly not the duty of a Minister of Transport to enter into arguments about wages or conditions, but it is the duty of the Minister who proposes a change of this kind to the House to try to assure himself that there is a reasonable chance of a proper, fair agreement being reached. I ventured to say, when the matter was debated before in the House, on 30th May, that I had met both the unions and the employers and, while it was not for me then, as it is not for me today, to go into the industrial relations aspect of the matter, it was my duty, as Minister, to see whether it would go through smoothly or not.
I said then, and it remains equally true today,
… I think it is fair that I should tell the House that I have this morning seen the Road Haulage Association and British Road Services, and they have both informed me that, whatever decision I take, they will not use it as an excuse either to stop negotiations or to import some new conditions into their negotiations. They have also both told me that they are most anxious to continue the progress that they have made until a satisfactory solution is reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1956; Vol. 553, c. 394.]
That was the position ten or eleven months ago. Since then I have tried to keep myself informed of progress and I think that the position that has been reached is an important one and should be realised by the House. This touches the British Road Services as well as the Road Haulage Association and I think those who represent the C licences interests.
The position is, I am informed, and I have taken soundings again this week, that it is now clearly accepted that, first, no employee would be worse off as a result of the introduction of the higher speed limit, and, secondly, that any increased dividends resulting from higher productivity should be divided in an agreed ratio between management and men.
There may well be those who will say "That is a general statement which has to be implemented in detail", but what I want to make plain to the House is that I think it was my duty, as Minister, to obtain that assurance and be satisfied that it is genuinely meant—I believe it is genuinely meant by both the British Road Services and other interests—but that was as far as I could properly take the matter in my sphere.
Consequently, I will merely repeat what I said on 30th May, 1956, that I think a fair and proper agreement can be reached, and as the matter has already been in front of the parties for well over six months now, and as the date of operation of the Regulations has carefully been put forward to 1st May to give them still further time, I do not think it is right that the House should delay any further on those grounds in coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I am sure that the Minister would be the first to agree that there is a big difference between agreement on general principles about what should be done and achieving


a settlement to implement the agreement. Would he not agree that, if he were to hold the balance between the two sides fairly, the best course to adopt would be to refuse to raise the speed limit until there was a general agreement upon this very important matter between the two sides of the industry?

Mr. Watkinson: I accept what the hon. Member says—I know his great interest in this matter—but I think it fair to answer him by saying that that is what Mr. Alfred Barnes did and what successive Ministers of Transport have done over the last ten years. I have come to the conclusion that this really is becoming an anomaly, and almost, from the law-breaking point of view, a disgrace, which the House should face and remedy.

Mr. McLeavy: It is true that Mr. Alfred Barnes—this strengthens my point—made a general statement about what ought to be done from his point of view, but did not implement it. That is my point now. All that matters is the implementation of the principles on which agreement is reached.

Mr. Watkinson: It would be very wrong, and without precedent, for a Minister of Transport, or any other Minister, to try to impose a settlement in such a case. It has to be freely negotiated. I have seen the parties a great number of times—it is only fair to say that—and Mr. Frank Cousins, Mr. Eastwood and the employers' associations could not have been more helpful.
There is a spirit of good will—there certainly has been when I have met them—and that leads me to believe that, having obtained these general assurances, that is really as far as I can go and the House should now deal with the matter by passing the Regulations and leave it to the respective parties then to come to a final settlement. My advice to the House—it is based on a slight experience of labour relations—is that I do not think we shall ever bring the matter to a conclusion unless the House plucks up its courage and goes forward with this matter.

Mr. David Jones: If there is all this good will on the part of the employers, and it has apparently existed for ten years—it is a long time since I occupied a very humble position at the Ministry, and it existed then—can

the right hon. Gentleman explain why there has not been an agreement? If there is not an agreement now without the Regulations, will it not be much more difficult to get an agreement after the Regulations are made?

Mr. Watkinson: I know that the hon. Gentleman took, and still takes, a very great interest in transport matters. I think he will agree that there has been no agreement because the House has not carried out its responsibilities and given a lead, which is what the Government are asking it to do today.

Mr. Percy Collick: The Minister has referred to the law-breaking aspect in other words, that whereas the speed limit for these vehicles is 20 m.p.h., that rate is considerably exceeded in practice. If the House gives the Minister his Regulations, and the speed limit rises to 30 m.p.h. for these heavy vehicles, what assurance can the House have, in the public interest, that once it concedes a limit of 30 m.p.h., that will not still be far exceeded?

Mr. Watkinson: I always like to be courteous to hon. Members, but that matter is covered in a later part of my speech and I will deal with it there.
I have taken careful advice as to the most convenient time to both employers and unions for doing this, and I have been advised that it is the late spring when schedules are easier because the days are lengthening. That is why the date of 1st May has been set. It still gives the parties a good deal of time to settle matters between them. As I have said, I think that the House is really abrogating its responsibility if it does not now bring the matter to a conclusion.
I want to make one or two other general points before I deal with the Regulations. There are other considerations which a Minister of Transport ought to bear in mind. This quite false speed limit—it is false in relation to both the design and the capacity of modern heavy goods vehicles—is distorting our design and productive capacity. It is causing manufacturers to build the wrong type of body, and it is, to some extent, prejudicing exports. We are losing productivity which we badly need because lorries built for much higher speeds—safely built for much higher speeds—are being run at artificially low speeds.
We are losing, to some extent, a quicker delivery of goods because some people still keep to the limit—although perhaps not many do. We are also wasting more fuel than we need, and to some extent increasing transport charges unnecessarily. These are all matters which my Ministry should carefully take into account. Therefore, on the grounds of practical matters of design and productivity, I am not in any doubt at all that this should be done, and should have been done a very long time ago.
I now turn for a moment to the safety aspect, which I know worries a number of people, including the Pedestrians' Association. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is present, and he will no doubt put the case of the Pedestrians' Association. If one looks through past copies of HANSARD since the days of the "red flag", one can find some very fascinating quotations about what speed limits should be. It may interest the House to know—perhaps it is in the recollection of many hon. Members—that it was the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who accepted the principle of altering speed limits by Regulation when the 1930 Act was passing through the House. The right hon. Gentleman said what a good thing it was that we should be able to vary speed limits according to changing conditions. That is true.
Therefore, those who want to maintain a 20 m.p.h. speed limit on the ground of safety are, I think, not really being very factual about it. The modern heavy vehicle has a modern braking system. It should also be remembered that the speed limit is not being increased for lorries with separate trailers. It is increased only in respect of lorries which have articulated trailers, the trailer really being part of the body. Where there is a completely separate trailer, the speed limit remains at 20 m.p.h.
There is another point to which I attach great importance. We are not getting a fast enough traffic flow on most of our main roads. I believe—I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House who do a great deal of motoring on main roads will agree with me—that it is very often the heavy lorry keeping to a 20 m.p.h. speed limit which is the cause

of an intolerable block on the road. I believe this causes a great number of accidents, because motorists are unsighted behind such a lorry, they remain there a long time, they get impatient and press past, and an accident then occurs. If that lorry were able legally to travel at 30 m.p.h. there would be a better traffic flow and, I believe, fewer accidents.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: My hon. Friend referred to cars overtaking these lorries which are travelling at 20 m.p.h. Would he not agree that the principal cause of innumerable serious accidents is the duality of the speeds of lorries themselves and the fact that a lorry travelling, perfectly legally, at 30 m.p.h. may endeavour to overtake a lorry travelling at 20 m.p.h., generally at the wrong time and place? That is the cause of most accidents.

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is certainly another important cause of accidents.
In any case, if we were to say in the House that the design of the heavy lorry has not become more efficient and much safer in the last ten years, we should not be keeping pace with reality.

Mr. Collick: I can understand the argument, but the Minister refers to one set of changing circumstances when he must also bear in mind the other set of changing circumstances. Our roads are far more congested than they have ever been and that is a consideration which must be taken into account.

Mr. Watkinson: That is why we must put more through the pipeline. We can do it only if we keep traffic flowing at a higher speed.
There are many other reasons that this change should be made on purely practical grounds, but I will not weary the House with them, because I think they are generally known to most hon. Members. I shall be fascinated if any hon. Member tries to argue this afternoon that we should not make this change on any grounds of practical test, the safety of the vehicle, or the general flow and speed of traffic, because I do not think that those objections can be maintained any longer.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The Minister has said that he would be fascinated by such an argument. Is it


not a fact that it is much more dangerous to overtake a lorry travelling at 30 m.p.h. than to overtake a lorry travelling at only 20 m.p.h.?

Mr. Watkinson: In perhaps one case out of a hundred I would agree with the hon. Member, but I am sure that he, like myself, has spent much time behind lorries keeping within the 20 m.p.h. limit, much to the detriment of our tempers. Perhaps he has not been tempted to pass, but I must admit that I have. It is not a good thing for road safety. He should also bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), which is equally relevant.

Mr. Mellish: I am sure that the Minister wants to be fair about this. Surely the vast majority of the motorists recognise that the courtesy which the lorry driver shows is to his credit and that he has a high place among the finest road users in the country. It is a little difficult to understand the argument that we must increase the speed limit to permit the private motorists to pass more quickly.

Mr. Watkinson: I still do not agree with the hon. Member's argument. I agree entirely when he says that the standard of road courtesy of drivers of heavy lorries is outstanding; I think we all recognise that they are the most careful and courteous drivers on the road. But how many times has the hon. Member been so close behind a lorry that he could not see the hand signals?

Mr. Mellish: With this Government in power I cannot afford a car.

Mr. Watkinson: That is a different matter.
I do not think that there are serious grounds of road safety for refusing to face this issue. Nor do I think that we shall ever reach a settlement on the problem of schedules if the House does not take a decision. On these general grounds, it is high time this matter was decided and that the House gave a lead to the country and dealt with a matter which has been in front of it for ten years. That is the reason for bringing the Regulations forward.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with what they set out to do. At the end of the

debate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will answer any specific problems which hon. Members have raised. The Regulations provide a new schedule of speed limits and, to some extent, bring these together in a more convenient form, setting out the various speed limits to which vehicles will now be subject. I am sure that it is well known to the House that they do not in any way affect the private motor car or the speed limit for the private motor car, but they bring into a more convenient list for the interests concerned the speed limits for various types of vehicles, starting with a vehicle having an unladen weight exceeding three tons and going through a schedule, with which I will not bother the House, which includes heavy and light locomotives, motor tractors and various types of goods vehicles, as well as track-laying vehicles. The schedule is brought up to date and set out in a way which I hope is clear.
As I have said, the Regulations do not increase the speed limit for lorries with a separate draw-bar trailer, but they increase the speed limit for the articulated lorry, with which we are all familiar, and for the ordinary heavy vehicle. The other changes which the Regulations make are relatively minor and I do not think that the House would wish me to waste very much time in dealing with them. My hon. Friend will answer any points which are raised. The important point, I think, is whether the House wants to try to tidy up this anomaly, and whether it feels that the parties concerned will ever reach a settlement unless they are now given a clear lead by the House.
I have been into this matter most carefully with the parties concerned and have done all I could to bring them together. I am fully satisfied that there is now a genuine desire to have the matter settled, but I think that desire may even fail again, as it has failed so often in the past, unless the House gives a lead. I therefore commend the Regulations to the House. It is almost impossible to say that this should not be done on grounds of practical design or safety or productivity or making the best use of our roads and our road vehicles.
I agree that there is and always has been a problem about settling schedules, although it may surprise hon. Members to know what a very small proportion of routes are scheduled. It is under half


for British Road Services and very much under half for the remainder of the industry. Scheduling is not the main problem, although I agree that it is a problem.

Mr. D. Jones: The Minister must be fair about this. When he talks about half the services, he is including all the tramping services, which cannot be scheduled. When he talks about scheduling he must consider the trunking runs. A very big proportion of the B.R.S. runs are tramping services, to which scheduling does not apply.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am only saying that, to put it in its widest form, not the whole industry runs scheduled services. We must not, therefore, assume that the settlement of this problem depends entirely on scheduling.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this matter is put in its correct perspective by pointing out that we are talking about 115,000 vehicles, out of which only about 10 per cent. are owned by B.R.S.? Unless that is made clear the impression may be created that we are discussing only B.R.S. vehicles, whereas they are only 10 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right about that. I have made it plain that all the heavy vehicle operators are concerned. I mentioned B.R.S. because they are the operators who, perhaps, have the most scheduled services in their route pattern. There is an immense number of C licence vehicles, and I am advised that there is very little difficulty in coming to a satisfactory arrangement in respect of them. I believe that that is the union's view.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because it should be made plain to the House that I do not think that any difficulty will arise in achieving a satisfactory arrangement upon the C licence vehicle front if the speed limit is raised. The difficulty arises upon the front covered by British Road Services and the Road Haulage Association. That is why I referred to those bodies specifically.

Mr. McLeavy: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that although the possibilities may be more favourable for a settlement with some of the larger companies, to which he has referred, there

will be some doubt whether a settlement can be arrived at if it cannot be applied to the whole industry, because the question of unfair competition will arise?

Mr. Watkinson: I am sure that the hon. Member will develop that point in his speech. It is something about which he feels very strongly.
The largest and probably the most powerful union in the country is engaged in this industry. It has very wide experience of negotiating, and very skilful officers, who have been brought up in the industry. I am quite sure that they are entirely capable of settling the problems that would arise. If I did not think that I should not be so confident about recommending this change to the House. This union's officers have outstanding skill in negotiating these matters. First, we have the C licence operators, who present no great difficulty and then the Road Haulage Association and British Road Services, who have both given me specific assurances, which I have quoted to the House.
Upon that basis, and taking into account the fact that we are perpetuating anomalies in the law, in design, and in the whole pattern of road transport, I strongly advise the House to deal with this matter today and change the speed limit by agreeing to the Regulations.

Mr. Collick: In an interjection I raised a point about law breaking. The Minister said that he would deal with this matter towards the end of his speech. So far, he has not done so.

Mr. Watkinson: I can answer the hon. Member in one sentence. We all know that the existing law is not obeyed; that it is impossible for the police to enforce it, and that if we have a realistic speed limit there is a much greater chance of the law being enforced. That is what I am advised.

Mr. Nabarro: I will deal with that point in due course.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member can do that if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.
I listened to the Minister's speech with great interest. Hon. Members on this side of the House are inclined to differ from him upon the question whether this


is the right moment and the right way in which to bring in the Regulations. His attitude is that by laying the Regulations and asking Parliament to approve them, agreement as to working conditions can be reached within the industry when the increased speed limit is operated. Later in my remarks I shall deal with that point.
The second point in respect of which we differ from him is in relation to his understanding of the present position existing within the industry. Throughout his speech he stressed that there was good will on the part of the road hauliers to reach agreement with the transport workers, with a view to operating an increased speed limit to the mutual satisfaction both of employers and employees. That is a matter which is very open to question. I propose to deal with it in the course of my later remarks.
At the outset, I would say that most of us would agree with the Minister that, on the face of it, the present speed limit of 20 m.p.h. for heavy vehicles is outdated; that it is neither observed nor enforced; that there have been very considable technical developments since the speed limit was raised in the thirties, and that there is a very strong case for raising the limit to 30 m.p.h. But certain qualifications have to be made. First, there is no question but that our roads are very much out of date in comparison with those of other European countries, to quote only our neighbours. Driving at high speeds on a decent road system is very different from doing so on our outdated system.
The Minister suggested that the traffic was not flowing fast enough along our roads. The question is whether it can flow much faster with safety. The question of safety is the responsibility of the Minister. We should all feel far happier about the raising of the speed limit if we were satisfied that there was an adequate programme for improving our road system.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Has not the hon. Member told the House that traffic is already going at a higher speed? What is the point of his argument?

Mr. Davies: My argument is that while the traffic certainly is flowing at higher

speeds it has not been shown that it is flowing at those speeds with safety. We are concerned with the question whether the increased speed will increase or diminish the dangers on the road. In that connection, I can well understand the point of view of those who are opposed to raising the speed limit. They have a case, upon grounds of safety, and their views are sincerely held.
The only justification for raising the speed limit is that it will be enforced. Those people like the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), who accept the need for vehicles to be allowed to travel at higher speeds, must also agree that a higher speed limit must be enforced. I see no reason why it should not be enforced. It is far easier to enforce a universal 30 m.p.h. speed limit than a variable one.
In the last resort, safety on the roads depends upon the human element. Those who drive heavy vehicles are subjected to considerable strain, great responsibility, and excessive fatigue. There is a maximum distance for which drivers can drive these heavy vehicles with safety. It is therefore essential that if we have a higher speed limit, and vehicles are driven longer distances daily by the same drivers, agreement must first be reached by mutual consent between drivers and employers.

Mr. William Shepherd: Surely there is a statutory requirement in this respect which fully safeguards the question of fatigue and so forth?

Mr. Davies: Yes, but if there is a statutory requirement that a driver can drive a heavy vehicle at 20 m.p.h. for only eleven hours a day, it does not necessarily follow that he should drive the same vehicle at 30 m.p.h. for the same period. My argument is that agreement must be reached as to the length of time that these drivers should be on the road, at the wheels of heavy vehicles, and the conditions under which they should drive. Unfortunately, up to now agreement has not been reached between the unions and the employers as to those conditions. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House have grave doubts as to the wisdom of introducing these Regulations at this time and oppose the action which the Minister is taking.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not think that this is


the right moment to make the change. My right hon. Friend referred to the series of negotiations which have been going on for six months but, in fact, when the hon. Gentleman was in office as a Minister in 1950–51, the same negotiations were going on and have been going on almost continuously now for nearly eight years. If this is not the right moment, when, for goodness' sake, will the right moment arrive?

Mr. Davies: The right moment, unfortunately, gets further and further away, because the congestion on the roads gets greater, and the road programme is not carried out.
We question the wisdom of the Minister in rushing these Regulations through at this stage. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but the Regulations provide that the speed limit will not be raised until 1st May. We are now only at 21st February and negotiations have been going on within the industry. In our view, it would be far better if the Minister delayed this in the hope that those engaged in the negotiations may have an opportunity to arrive at a conclusion. He should not load the dice, as it were, against the unions, as he is doing by forcing these Regulations through the House at this stage.
I would suggest to the Minister that, if peaceful relations which have so long prevailed in the industry are to continue and be preserved, any change in the speed limit must be with the full co-operation of both the road hauliers and the drivers. Unfortunately, the Government, in collaboration with a powerful section of the industry, are bringing about this change at this time and, in my view, are endangering future labour relations within the industry.

Mr. Nabarro: Rubbish.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) says "rubbish". All I ask him to do is to wait and see. He must get this situation straight. All that the Minister is doing is to raise the legal maximum from 20 to 30 m.p.h. for vehicles of three tons and over unladen weight. He cannot fix the minimum speed. He is fixing the maximum speed, and there is nothing he can do to compel drivers to go faster than they are going at present. Whether the drivers travel faster or not, whether their

schedules are faster schedules or not, is a matter for agreement between the employers and the transport workers. That is an industrial and not a political matter. That is something for the industry itself to work out and not for the Minister to impose upon them. It is something which the industry has been trying to work out and has not yet succeeded in doing.
I would warn the hon. Member for Kidderminster that it is the driver who is at the wheel of the vehicle. If no fair agreement is reached as to the new schedules and as to the pay which the drivers will receive, they can continue to operate these vehicles on the old schedules. There is no way in which they can be compelled to operate them on the new schedules.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has referred to drivers. Which drivers? There are 115,000 vehicles, 60,000 of them are C-licence vehicles, and the owners of these vehicles have not yet been concerned in the wage negotiations that have gone on. Of course, all that the hon. Gentleman is thinking about is the British Road Service people. If they withdraw their labour, private enterprise operators will take the traffic from them, and a very good thing too.

Mr. Davies: Fortunately for me, the hon. Member for Kidderminster cannot read my mind and does not know what I am thinking. So far as I am concerned, the unions are solid in the road haulage industry.

Mr. Nabarro: Which unions?

Mr. Davies: The Transport and General Workers' Union which organises both the C-licence drivers and those who drive A- and B-licence vehicles of the British Road Services. Any negotiations which are going on are with regard to all the drivers and not just the B.R.S. drivers, against whom the hon. Member for Kidderminster seems to have some prejudice.

Mr. Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Collick: It is not the hon. Member's union anyhow.

Mr. Davies: I think that the Minister and the Road Haulage Association are being somewhat stupid in thinking that by imposing these Regulations at this time they will be able to force upon the


industry an agreement as to working conditions. As I have said, it is the man at the wheel who will have the last word on this and, unfortunately, so far there has been—

Mr. Watkinson: Of course I am not trying to force on the industry, nor are the Government, any kind of agreement. As the hon. Gentleman said, all that I can do is to put up the speed limit. What happens after that is not for me, but it is my duty to put up the limit.

Mr. Nabarro: That has put the hon. Gentleman in his place.

Mr. Davies: I do not know whether it is a question of duty to put up the speed limit. The Minister's duty is to look after the interests of all those in the industry, and I fear that by taking this action he is looking after the interests, or thinks he is looking after the interests, of one section of the industry and not the other. He is looking after the interests of the Road Haulage Association and not the interests of the transport workers.

Mr. Nabarro: What about the C-licence people.

Mr. Davies: I wish the hon. Member would forget the C-licence holders for whom he holds a special brief.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or in accordance with the best safety traditions of this House, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster should take his hands off the handlebars when trying to steer his way on to the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Davies: The problem which concerns the industry is that any increase in the speed limit requires revision of the drivers' schedules and their scale of remuneration. If 30 m.p.h. is permitted, it means that the average speed at which the vehicles can travel on the roads may go up from 16 or 17 m.p.h. to 23 or 24 m.p.h. That means that the drivers will be able to travel about as far in 8½ hours as they are now travelling in 11 hours, provided that the road conditions are favourable.
If that is so, the first principle which confronts the workers is that they shall be in no way worse off. If they are going on a run which they accomplish in 8½ hours instead of 11 hours, it is essential that they should receive as much pay for

8½ hours as they are now receiving for 11 hours. The second principle is that there should be some agreement as to the apportionment between the employers in the industry and the workers of the increased productivity which arises. The Minister agrees. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take the view in his opening remarks that the employers had accepted those two principles, but my understanding is that they have not.
They have accepted the first principle, that the workers should be no worse off; but, so far as my understanding of the circumstances goes, they have not accepted the second principle, that there should be some apportionment of the increased productivity between the employers and the men. This, as the Minister agrees, is something which the industry itself has to work out.
Negotiations between the men and the Road Haulage Association took place a long time ago and went on over a period; and no agreement was reached, because the second principle was not accepted. When these negotiations failed, tripartite negotiations took place between the R.H.A., the B.R.S. and the transport workers. Again, those negotiations got nowhere, but the B.R.S. has continued discussions with the men and put forward tentative suggestions on certain formulae. It has definitely shown a readiness and willingness to reach agreement on some basis so that the speed limit can be raised and there can be a peaceful transition from the 20 to the 30 m.p.h. limit. I put it no higher than that; that a willingness has been shown on the part of the B.R.S. to reach agreement and that discussions are continuing up to the present time.
So far as the Road Haulage Association is concerned, no negotiations have taken place since August of last year. That good will to which the Minister referred has not been shown by the Association. In other words, it is the public sector of the industry which is showing the sense of responsibility in this matter which is lacking in the private sector.

Mr. Nabarro: Not the C-licences.

Mr. Davies: It is true that within the road haulage industry—

Mr. Nabarro: They are not C-licence holders.

Mr. Davies: I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop fighting the battle for his vested interest.

Mr. Nabarro: What about the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Davies: Fortunately, I have no vested interests.
I wish to ask the Minister why it is that he has surrendered to the private sector of the industry, which represents only a minority within the industry? It is this private sector, and not the public sector, which is holding up agreement within the industry. It is preventing agreement being reached, and the right hon. Gentleman, by bringing these Regulations before the House, is playing into the hands of that private sector.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that British Road Services is against this reform being introduced?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said, he would have realised that I have not given that impression at all. I stated that British Road Services is at present carrying on conversations with the unions concerned with a view to reaching agreement so that an increase in the speed limit may be brought about peacefully and so that the increased productivity can be shared between the transport workers and B.R.S.
I wish to point out the extent to which the Road Haulage Association, which is holding up any agreement, represents only a minority of the industry. At the end of last September, of 124,000 heavy vehicles—those are the vehicles with which we are concerned—there were only 42,000 A- and B-licences held by private operators—roughly one-third. The C-licensees, to whom the hon. Member for Kidderminster is so devoted, are represented by 71,000; and so these 42,000 out of 124,000 are responsible for holding up any agreement in the industry. It was the hon. Member for Kidderminster who, in the debate during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Act said that the R.H.A. was "an unrepresentative and minority body"—

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davies: It is this unrepresentative and minority body which is preventing agreement being reached in the industry today.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Davies: No, I am sorry I cannot give way. I have given way a great deal. If the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, he can make his own speech in good time.

Mr. D. Jones: The hon. Member should keep his hands on his handlebars.

Mr. Davies: In my view, this hold-up in negotiations, this refusal by the Road Haulage Association to continue discussions with the unions in order to reach agreement, is the direct result of the action of the Minister. It is due to the fact that on 30th May the Minister, as he stated this afternoon, announced that he intended to bring these Regulations before the House by the spring of this year. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he was well informed as to the negotiations; that he had presided over several meetings and that they appeared to him to be rasonably fruitful. But at that stage, when it appeared that those negotiations could have a successful outcome, the right hon. Gentleman chose to announce that he proposed to introduce these Regulations and to raise the speed limit.
I cannot understand why he should have made that statement and taken that action at the very time when negotiations were proceeding. It seems to me that if the Road Haulage Association was informed—as it was—by the Minister that on a certain date the speed limit would be raised, the Association would be less willing or anxious to reach agreement, because, knowing full well that it would get the higher speed limit anyhow, it would be able to try to dictate terms to the unions rather than proceed in the normal way on an equal basis.
The Minister himself stated that he warned that he did not think he should do anything which would force the hands of those engaged in the negotiations, but it seems to me that that is precisely what he has done. It was only after the right hon. Gentleman had made his announcement that the negotiations broke down. The right hon. Gentleman made this statement at the end of May. Further fruitless discussions took place, but from August of last year there has been no attempt whatever on the part of the Road Haulage Association to meet the unions


and to reach agreement. The reason is that the R.H.A. felt itself in a strong position. It knew the speed limit was to be raised; it knew it was in a position to try to impose higher schedules on the men and it preferred to wait until the speed limit was raised.
What the Minister did was what the Road Haulage Association has always wanted. It wanted the Regulations to be made and then to try to make adjustments in the schedules afterwards on its own terms. The Association thought the unions would be put in a weaker position and that the dice would be loaded against them. The Road Haulage Association is being extremely stupid in this instance. It is being stupid because it underestimated the strength and determination of the men. As I said earlier, it is for the men in control of the vehicles to decide whether they drive at the higher speed or not.
Secondly, the Road Haulage Association is behaving extremely stupidly because, without agreement, the big hauliers will be at the mercy of the small men in the industry who do not abide by the agreement and who, because of excessive competition—brought about by the breaking up of the industry following denationalisation—will undercut the larger operators and will operate at the higher speeds. They will run faster schedules in these small units and some of the men will comply with the conditions, either because of the remuneration they receive—one cannot close one's eyes to that—or because of their fear of losing their employment.
It will be the big men with the large units who will suffer as the result of this competition and the unscrupulous, ruthless way in which the small men carry on in the industry. We all know that they are already running schedules far outside the limits and that they are breaking the speed-limits already. Hundreds of them are failing to keep the proper records and are working their drivers excessive hours. There is no disguising that. All the figures published have shown great increases in the breaking of the law in these respects.
The Minister has made a mistake. He should have been tough with the road hauliers. He is dealing with a set of

so-called businessmen who are not really clever and who are short-sighted. Even the Minister is cleverer, or should be, than they are. He should have said to the Road Haulage Association, "If there is no agreement on new schedules and new working conditions, there will be no Regulations. First, you must have an agreement, and then you will have your Regulations." The Minister can be tough on occasion. Recently he simulated toughness in regard to the railways. He threatened to break them up and sell them off if they did not co-operate with him in carrying out the modernisation programme. There is no justification at all for that petulant outburst, which was quite unworthy of a Cabinet Minister.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps it would be as well to quote it correctly. What I said was that if we did not get the right co-operation of the management, who are equally involved in this, the railways would go bankrupt and they would have to be broken up, through no act of mine but through their own failure—which I do not think will happen—to implement modernisation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I hope that hon. Members will not pursue this point, which has nothing to do with these Regulations.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that the House will not accept the Minister's present interpolation.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. When you rule that a matter is ultra vires our debate, is it in order for the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) to make such an opprobrious observation, following your Ruling?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is undesirable to pursue this matter any further.

Mr. Davies: I should like the Minister to show some toughness towards the Road Haulage Association at this stage. I should have thought the Government had already paid off their debt to the Road Haulage Association. The trouble with blackmailers is that they always come back for more. The Road Haulage Association, having got its denationalisation, is still coming back, and it is time that the Government stood up to it.
If, between now and 1st May, when these Regulations come into effect, no agreement is reached between the private hauliers and the unions, and if the Road Haulage Association continues to be as pig-headed as it is today and maintains its selfish stand, then, on the Regulations coming into force, there may be trouble within the industry. If there is, the responsibility will not lie with the public sector of the industry, nor with the workers, but with a powerful, stupid minority of the private sector, the Road Haulage Association, and with the Minister himself for surrendering to it. He and his collaborators will be to blame.
Although, therefore, this change is due, and it may be desirable to increase the productivity of the road haulage industry, the manner and the timing of this introduction are wrong. For these reasons, and especially because the speed-limit is to be raised in conditions which the Minister has made favourable to one side of the industry—the private employers—and prejudicial to the other side—the workers—and has thereby made agreement difficult in the extreme, I must advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide against the Regulations.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will forgive me if I do not follow him into this labyrinth of negotiations and agreements between the two sides of the industry. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, they seem entirely irrelevant to the point at issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I deprecate the attack on one side of the industry made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East, as much as I would deprecate any attack from this side on the trade unions in this issue, which seems hardly relevant.
My anxiety over these Regulations is entirely on the grounds of road safety. I feel that my right hon. Friend has rather swept aside that consideration. I rather hoped that our delay in debating these Regulations over the past few weeks meant there was some modification of them coming. I entirely appreciate that it is economically desirable to increase the flow of goods by road transport if the roads are adequate, but these increases in the speed limit are legalising a flow of traffic at speeds of 30 m.p.h.

along all the roads in this country. I would not have minded if it was just along dual carriageways, or something of that sort.
Some of the main roads along which these great vehicles have to travel are only 20 feet wide. My right hon. Friend has recently authorised a width of vehicle, with load, of 9 feet 6 inches—to travel along a 20-foot wide road—and an increase in length of vehicle to 30 feet. All this raises considerable anxiety about road safety.
These Regulations apply not only to the modern vehicle built in the last few years but to others. There must still be a great number of old vehicles on the road not equipped for these speeds. In commending the Regulations to the House, my right hon. Friend said that vehicles—I cannot quote his exact words, but this is the gist of them—were now constructed to go at these speeds in safety. That may be, but many of the older vehicles still on the road were built for the 20 m.p.h. speed limit. It causes anxiety that their speeds at between 30 and 40 m.p.h. will now be legalised. The argument that they already travel at these speeds is most fallacious in bringing forward these Regulations. That surely is no excuse for legalising something which is illegal. In fact, it strengthens the argument I want to put forward. We know perfectly well that 90 per cent. of the heavy vehicles on the road today exceed the 20 m.p.h. speed limit.

Mr. Nabarro: Ninety-five per cent.

Mr. Page: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He says that 95 per cent. exceed the speed limit. We are not talking about what might happen, but have before us statistics of what is already happening. I wish to develop the argument to show that it may mean that they will exceed 30 m.p.h. in future. Taking the figures for 1955, we find that 110,000 heavy vehicles were registered in that year. I believe the number is now 115,000 or 120,000. Of those 110,000, 10,000—to be accurate 10,006—were concerned in accidents in which personal injury occurred. That is one in eleven for every vehicle on the road.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: What is the relationship between the accidents and heavy vehicles?

Mr. Page: That is the relationship.

Mr. Pargiter: That is the relationship between the number of accidents and the whole. What is the relationship between the accidents and the heavy vehicles as such as distinct from light vehicles?

Mr. Page: There were 110,000 heavy vehicles registered and 10,000 accidents involving heavy vehicles in which there was personal injury. Therefore, one in eleven heavy vehicles had an accident in which personal injury occurred. I have tried to make my mathematics clear. The heavy vehicle travels a far greater mileage than the private car and one must, perhaps, expect a far greater ratio of accidents for it than for the private car, but, even so, the ratio is very high. I do not blame the drivers, because in only 3,352 cases of those 10,000 I have quoted were the drivers responsible. I want to pay tribute such as has already been paid to the drivers as the most courteous and efficient drivers on the road.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend is faulty in his logic and seeks to compare the ratio of accidents as between heavy goods vehicles with private cars. The proper comparison, as we are seeking to make a speed limit for all goods vehicles, is the ratio of accidents to heavy vehicles currently tied to the 20 m.p.h. limit and the ratio of accidents to goods vehicles currently tied to 30 m.p.h. limit. That would be a valid comparison.

Mr. Page: I cannot produce the figures at once, but the ratio for goods vehicles travelling at 30 m.p.h. is very much better than the figure I have given for heavy vehicles. There is a lot in the mileage, and I have admitted that, but nevertheless the ratio is high.
What is even more important is the ratio of killed to the number of injured. In any set of figures of this sort that increases with the weight of the vehicle. That is to say, in all the statistics of road accidents the ratio of killed to injured increases with the weight of the vehicle. Hon. Members know the formula for kinetic energy, that is to say, the damaging power of a moving vehicle. It is half the mass multiplied by the velocity squared. To give a reasonable example, it means that a twelve-ton lorry traveling

at 30 m.p.h. is eight times as dangerous as a car travelling at 30 m.p.h.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend say the formula again, as I did not get it?

Mr. Page: If my hon. Friend did not learn that at school and has not got it now, I shall never get it into his brain.
In addition to the danger from the weight of the vehicle, there are the peculiar characteristics of the heavy vehicle, which were pointed out in the Road Research Technical Paper No. 26, from page 1 of which I quote:
When the brakes are applied the braking forces do not act through the centre of gravity of the vehicle. As a result, the effective load on the front wheels is increased and that on the rear wheels is decreased. The magnitude of the load transfer depends on the deceleration produced by the braking, on the total weight of the vehicle, and on the ratio of the wheelbase to the height of the centre of gravity of the vehicle and its load.
Thus, in heavy vehicles with heavy loads the braking becomes unbalanced and is thrown on to the front wheels and one does not get such efficient braking as with the ordinary car. On page 19 of the same paper, it is clearly stated by those carrying out research for the Road Research Laboratory:
The best braking performance of a few of the heaviest commercial vehicles was much lower than that of other classes of commercial vehicles. That was mainly due to the relatively slow build-up in the braking system itself; although fairly high maximum decelerations could be achieved, the time taken to reach the maximum deceleration was comparatively long and the average deceleration was low, resulting in long braking distance.
There is no doubt that from the point of view of safety these vehicles take longer to decelerate and to stop and that they obviously cause greater damage when they hit anything, even at a low speed. One has only to refer to the figures at the back of the Highway Code, which has a note at the end setting out the stopping distances of various cars. That note says:
Vehicles other than private cars or small vans may need twice these distances in which to pull up on dry roads.
On wet roads, for all vehicles, allow twice the normal margin of safety.
If one works out the figures, one finds that a heavy vehicle travelling at 30 m.p.h. needs no less than 100 yards to stop on a wet road. There are only 15 yards between the studs at the approach to a pedestrian crossing and the


pedestrian crossing itself. If large vehicles of this kind are to travel at such speeds, that will tend to turn pedestrian crossings into death traps.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Of course, my hon. Friend would agree that the braking surface of a heavy vehicle per ton is considerably greater than the braking surface of a light vehicle?

Mr. Page: Even when that is taken into account it takes a great deal longer to bring a heavy vehicle to rest, even at slow speeds, and it is more likely to cause death than a lighter vehicle.
Do these Regulations mean that they are likely only to travel at 30 m.p.h.? That is the anxiety in the mind of the public. If the speed is legally raised to 30 m.p.h. does it mean that it can be enforced at that limit, or is there going to be a speed limit at all? Are we really talking about raising the speed limit, or altering the schedules for heavy vehicles? I understand that the schedules are now working on a 16 m.p.h. to 17 m.p.h. average and that the discussions which have been proceeding are based on an average of something between 21 m.p.h. and 23 m.p.h.
I read in the Manchester Guardian a statement which purports to come from an official of the A.A. in these words:
It has been calculated that to maintain an average 24 miles an hour on the London to Newcastle run, excluding stops, you would probably require speeds of about 60 or 65 m.p.h. at times on the faster sections.
To read that sort of thing is really terrifying to anyone who has to travel these roads, either on foot or in private cars. It is terrifying to think that if these schedules are to be maintained these heavy vehicles may be running at 60 or 65 m.p.h. I do not know whether that is an exaggeration or not, but it is a newspaper quotation of a statement by an official of the A.A.

Mr. Pargiter: Has the hon. Gentleman got his figures right? Was it not to maintain an average of 30 m.p.h.?

Mr. Page: It is to maintain an average speed of 24 m.p.h. We are talking about the new schedules. I personally think that it must be an exaggeration. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that speeds very much more than 30 m.p.h. will have to be reached in order to maintain a schedule of 24 m.p.h.
The argument that the 20 m.p.h. speed limit cannot be enforced causes great anxiety when one considers the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. Is that limit going to be enforced? I do not think it is a good argument to say that the 20 m.p.h. limit has not been enforced. I do not think anyone has ever really tried to enforce it. Ther are many ways of enforcing a speed limit other than putting a policeman down a side road. In Western Germany, they have already compulsorily introduced speed recorders on heavy vehicles. In the United States they use the radar system, which I gather is already quite far advanced in experiments carried out in this country at Slough. There is no reason why the new limit should not be enforced indeed, there is no reason why either the 20 m.p.h. or the 30 m.p.h. speed limit should not be enforced.
A further argument which the Minister used was that there would be less overtaking. With all respect to my right hon. Friend, I cannot believe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would accept that argument. Those of us who have driven behind these heavy vehicles have wished to heaven that they would slow down to 20 m.p.h. so that we could pass them. That is what I have found in driving on the road. The ordinary private motorist is forced to pass these vehicles at 30, 40 or even 50 m.p.h., and he only wishes they would slow down to 20 m.p.h. or even to 30 m.p.h. so that he might pass them in some safety. I am afraid it is not going to mean less overtaking, but overtaking at greater speed, and there are already 18,000 accidents a year due to overtaking.
I feel that if only the Minister could give us an assurance that if these Regulations are accepted by the House a real effort will he made to enforce the speed limit of 30 m.p.h. we would not have so much anxiety about accepting them. But, while the argument is used that the 20 m.p.h. limit could not be enforced, there is that fear that the 30 m.p.h. will not be enforced, and that we shall have vehicles travelling faster and faster, more and more dangerously and a greater and greater threat to road safety. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to give us that assurance that he will be able to enforce the 30 m.p.h. speed limit.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: When we last discussed the question of increasing the speed limit in May of last year, we had under consideration a new Clause to increase the maximum speed limit from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. which was proposed by the hon. Member fol. Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). As the House will recall, I opposed that Clause on the grounds of public safety arising from the lack of suitable motor roads and the need for general agreement upon industrial problems between both sides of the industry. I want to say quite frankly that I stand by every word I said on that occasion. However, in view of the shortness of time and of what I have heard in the very excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on the safety aspect of the matter, I should like to confine my remarks to the need for prior industrial agreement.
The Minister has spoken about the need for increased productivity. No one in these days of economic difficulty will disagree that as far as possible in every section of industry there ought to be a drive for increased productivity, subject to and consistent with the safety of the public and the workers, and industrial agreement on the sharing of the benefits arising from that increased productivity. I do not think anyone on either side of the House believes that increased productivity can be achieved by the mere passing of regulations by this House. It can be made possible only by full agreement between both sides of industry.
The Minister, in proposing the adoption of these Regulations, made it perfectly clear that there are vast problems to be faced in the transport industry—the question of schedules, the question of wages and many other problems which all hinge on this question of the alteration of the speed limit. It is our case, from the industry's point of view, that it is wrong for the Minister and it is wrong for Parliament to agree to the alteration of the speed limit prior to industrial agreement as to how it will be worked and how the increased productivity and profits are to be allocated between both sides of industry.
We have seen Ministers come to the Dispatch Box on many occasions to report improvements in the conditions of employment of workers in the nationalised

industries, and they have merely expressed the hope that increased productivity would result. They very wisely left the question of the speed of production to be resolved through the normal industrial machinery. They would never have dared to say to the miners or the railwaymen, "You must produce, or travel, at speeds fixed by Parliament." The mere fact that the speed of road vehicles is subject to Parliamentary legislation does not justify the Minister seeking to use Parliament to solve an industrial problem.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Are there not all sorts of Acts and Regulations relating to safety on the railways and, indeed, to road safety? This is not a compulsory provision, but only one permitting a person to travel at up to 30 m.p.h.

Mr. McLeavy: That is very plausible, but in point of fact the whole of the case of the Minister falls down on the repeated assertion by the Minister that transport vehicles are travelling at 30 m.p.h. now. If the Minister's argument is correct that lorries are already travelling at 30 m.p.h., the Regulations will not bring increased productivity. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
I want to dwell on the vital question of the welfare of the transport worker. This matter was brought out very clearly in our discussions last May. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) addressed a very pertinent question to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, whom I am glad to see is here.

Mr. Nabarro: I have been here all the time.

Mr. McLeavy: It was a question on this very important point of the welfare of the transport worker. It will be recalled that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had moved a new Clause to increase the speed limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h. My hon. and learned Friend asked this question:
Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether, if the Clause was passed tonight, the dice would not be loaded against the drivers and in favour of the Road Haulage Association, because once the Clause has been passed, the latter would know that they had got it, and it would only be a question of hanging up on the negotiations, because the Clause which would assist them would already have been approved.


The hon. Member for Kidderminster replied as follows:
If I may reply to that point, may I say that I think there is an element of truth in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I am encouraged by the fact that, since we debated the matter in Standing Committee on 15th December last—six months ago—very considerable progress has been made by the negotiating bodies, and, in fact, the issues outstanding have now been so narrowed down as to be capable of resolution within a few weeks.

Mr. Nabarro: I know the hon. Member much too well to think he would wish to mislead the House. He has quoted almost the whole passage but has left out the last sentence of my reply, which follows directly. After the words "within a few weeks." appears the following sentence:
That, however, is a matter of wage negotiations into which I do not wish to go further on the Floor of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1956; Vol. 553, c. 381.]
That is the operative point, and I will come back to it later.

Mr. McLeavy: It is certainly not my desire to misrepresent the hon. Member, but to me the quotation seems clear-cut. Whatever short sentence I may have omitted, the fact remains that in May of last year the hon. Member was satisfied that the industry was on the verge of arriving at a settlement of these industrial problems which arise from the increase in the speed limit. When that statement was made the Minister himself did not share the hon. Member's view or hope. To my mind, the Minister appeared to share the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilkeston that there was some doubt whether these negotiations would be advanced by the passage of the Clause.
The Minister has very properly referred to the private discussions which have gone on between both sides of the industry. I want to say quite frankly that I believe the Minister has done what he could to try to get some sensible settlement between both sides of the industry of this very thorny question. My complaint against the Minister—I always like to be frank and fair in these matters—is not that he has not made reasonable efforts to get a settlement; my complaint against him is that, having failed to get a settlement because of the refusal of one side of the industry, he now proceeds

to ask Parliament to approve Regulations which will make it more difficult for the workers' side of the industry to get a reasonable and sensible settlement.

Mr. Watkinson: Mr. Watkinson indicated dissent.

Mr. McLeavy: The Minister may shake his head as much as he likes, but everyone who has had to deal with industrial matters knows perfectly well that the main point in solving industrial problems is for Ministerial representatives to keep a fair balance between the two sides. It is true that this question has been in existence for ten years, but that has not been the fault of the trade union movement which, over the past 10 years, has been striving to get a reasonable, fair and just settlement of the very serious problems which arise in connection with drivers' conditions. The Minister is conversant with this. He knows the full facts. He knows the efforts which the trade unions have made. Indeed, he has made some efforts himself.
We have here an industry which has been free from major industrial strifes and difficulties for the past ten years, and an industry which is of vital importance to the transportation of the commodities required by the nation at home and required for export. It is an industry in which there has been peace and good will over the past ten years. There have been no extravagant demands for wage increases. Yet the Minister says at such a time, "Because there has been no agreement on this question of the increased speed limit, I will introduce these Regulations, I will make it less possible for the workers to get a fair crack of the whip from the employers, and I will give the employers a whip which they can use against the workers." That is precisely how the transport workers will assess the Minister's attitude to this problem.
The workers in the transport industry have not made unreasonable demands for wage increases. They have been moderate and restrained and their leadership has been wise and understanding of the problem. If hon. Members look at the table in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for 1956, they will find that in the last week of April, 1956, the transport worker was placed 117th out of the workers in 133 industries and that he had a much lower average hourly wage rate than that for manufacturing industry.
This strengthens my point. Tribute has been paid from the other side to the ability, skill and courtesy of transport workers, but I do not think that every Member realises that the men driving these heavy vehicles can, by one error of judgment, kill or injure someone, or do serious damage to other vehicles, and can be hauled before a court for negligence or other offences. I am reminded that over 3,000 were taken to court last year.
That emphasises the importance of a settlement for the sake of the safety not only of the general public but of these drivers. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that these vehicles should go at 30 m.p.h. They should remember that those who are driving the vehicles have the responsibility of life and death in their hands, and it is because of that that we say that there ought to be agreement within the industry before we are asked to approve these Regulations.
I am sure that the Minister would not object if I were to quote what he said in May, 1956, on this very matter. He said:
… the main question here … is one of industrial negotiations, of settling the new schedules, etc., that must inevitably arise from a change in speed limit. It is a question not only of schedules but of subsistence, of different turn round"—
and I want to lay special emphasis on what follows:
in fact, to some extent, almost a different system of operating. We cannot just put that on one side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1956; Vol. 553, c. 392.]
If that was the Minister's view last May, the House and the workers are entitled to know why he has changed it, and why he asks us this afternoon to pass these Regulations in the face of all the problems which he then said had to be faced properly and fairly. In view of what he said in May, is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking that if there is no agreement on this increase in the speed limit by May he is prepared to suspend its operation until agreement is reached? As the Minister has repeatedly recognised that negotiations and a settlement are necessary in the interests of peace in this industry, I think that he owes it to the industry to give such an undertaking.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: This is the third occasion within a matter of 15 months on which either I have followed the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) or he has followed me exactly on this controversy. The origin of it was that during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill I moved a new Clause to give powers to my right hon. Friend, which, in fact, he already possessed under an earlier Statute, for the raising of the speed limit on heavy goods vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. That was a legitimate device or artifice to bring about a full discussion of the problem during the Committee stage of that Bill.
I did not force a Division in Committee, although the majority of Conservative Members then shared my view. We deferred the next stage of the discussion until the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill, which took place in May of last year, when I again moved a similar new Clause. It was then that my right hon. Friend gave the undertaking that he would introduce the necessary Regulations under the existing statutory powers to which I have just referred, and that he would make them effective in the spring of this year. There are good reasons for making them effective in the spring of this year, and my first duty now is warmly to thank my right hon. Friend for honouring his undertaking so expeditiously and punctiliously.
Listening to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), one got the impression that the only body which favours the raising of this speed limit for goods vehicles is the Road Haulage Association. In fact, the greater part of his speech this afternoon was devoted to a vicious attack on that body. He called it, in effect, the paymaster of the Tory Party—

Mr. Ernest Davies: Mr. Ernest Davies rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my sentence. I have made careful note of the fact that he gave way to me on two occasions, and I will reciprocate by giving way to him on two occasions—but on no more than two occasions, because I know his habits so well.
To finish my sentence, I say that one would suppose, having listened to such a


vicious attack, that in his eyes not only is the Road Haulage Association the paymaster of the Tory Party—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nabarro: Last week it was the brewers.

Mr. Collick: And the landlords.

Mr. Nabarro: Whoever it is, we cast our net wide, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and it would be out of order this evening to debate the probity of political party finances.
The fact is that there is very widespread support indeed, by reputable bodies of many kinds and descriptions, for the action which my right hon. Friend is taking by these Regulations. It would not be inappropriate to say who those bodies are. They are: British Road Federation; Federation of British Industries; Mansion House Association on Transport; National Union of Manufacturers; Road Haulage Association; Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders; the Traders Road Transport Association; the Traders Traffic Conference; the British Transport Commission itself and—may I add?—the Amalgamated Engineering Union. It will be intensely instructive tonight to see which way the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), the representatives and spokesmen in this House of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, representing the builders of the heavy goods vehicles, will vote tonight. I will willingly give way to the hon. Member for Southall as he is a representative of the A.E.U.

Mr. Pargiter: If I am fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I shall be very glad to tell the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful. I shall await in my place, pregnant with expectancy, the momentous statement which is to follow.

Mr. Ede: Another miscarriage.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has observed "Another miscarriage", but it is not a miscarriage. This is a very important topic which we have been arguing for many years past, and I want to make the

point at the outset that the case of the hon. Member for Enfield, East, stated erroneously that the Road Haulage Association is the only supporter of this Measure. Manifestly that is wrong.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me completely. The point which I made, and of which he is very well aware, was that it is the Road Haulage Association which prevented agreement within the industry, whereby this could be brought about peacefully. Nobody denies that the other organisation's, including his favourite C-licensees, are in favour of raising the speed limit and of reaching agreement, but the Road Haulage Association is holding up agreements.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is gullible indeed. He has made the intervention which I wanted him to make to enable me to proceed with the next passage in my speech. I have talked at length of the Road Haulage Association being a minority interest. Of course, it is a minority interest. British Road Services are also a minority interest in this field. The majority interest is represented by the C-licence holders. Do not let us make any mistake about that fact.
The hon. Gentleman's figures were out of date. I will give him the up-to-date figures, and he might take them down for his future reference. The total number of heavy goods service vehicles referred to in these Regulations is 122,000. The number of C-licence owners are 70,000 correct to the nearest thousand, representing 57½ per cent. of the whole. The A- and B-licenees, including the British Road Services, are 52,000 representing 42½ per cent.

Mr. Davies: At what date?

Mr. Nabarro: These figures are the latest published figures available from the Ministry of Transport, as at 30th June. 1956.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman says that my figures are out of date. My figures are some months later than his. The figures which I quoted were for 30th September last year. The A- and B-licences number 42,414, the C-licences 71,953, and the B.R.S.—and these are the latest figures, as at 31st December, 1956—total 9,936. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will note those figures for future reference.

Mr. Nabarro: On the contrary, would the hon. Gentleman tell me the source of his figures? Was the source the Ministry of Transport? Of course, it was not. It is a figment of his own imagination. The fact is that the figures that I have quoted are incontrovertible and are derived from the Ministry of Transport.
Whether the hon. Gentleman is right or whether I am right, he would readily concede to me that something in the order of 57½ per cent. to 60 per cent. of all these heavy goods vehicles are in the hands of C-licence holders. I do not think we will quarrel any further on that point.
The fact is, as so much of our debate has been concerned with wage negotiations, that the C-licence holders have not been concerned with the wage negotiations at all. Thus, the majority interest in this matter has not been concerned with the wage negotiations. I ask the hon. Member for Bradford, East, who is or has been associated with the Transport and General Workers Union, whether he will talk to Mr. Frank Cousins—because we have often indulged in controversy on the radio and in other spheres on issues of this kind—and ask him, with my compliments, whether it is not a fact that he readily admits that C-licence owners are in no difficulty in this matter. They are prepared to adjust their wage rates and their schedules and fall in with reasonable union demands. There would be no difficulty whatever in their case.
The difficulty arises in connection with the A-and B-licence holders. They are made up of the Road Haulage Association representation in part measure, the British Road Services interest in part measure—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are willing to agree"] No, they are evidently unable to agree. If there is one thing to which I object more than anything else, it is that this debate was preceeded by a matter of twenty-four hours by a strike threat by B.R.S. drivers to reinforce the case being made by the Socialist Opposition today. In other words, the strike threat was launched yesterday in order to give hon. Members opposite an excuse to say that disquiet and dislocation in the industry, would result—

Mr. Ernest Davies: Mr. Ernest Davies rose—

Mr. Nabarro: No, I am not giving way again.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman substantiate what he says?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has made an accusation and an imputation against the workers of British Road Services. Should he not substantiate the statement that he has made when he casts reflections like that on such a body of men?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The fact is that I am not making an imputation. I am stating facts, and facts do not need substantiating. The hon. Member for Enfield, East is so indolent and pays so little attention to the reports published day by day in the newspapers upon the affairs of the industry which he is seeking to debate, that he has evidently omitted to observe that this strike threat by the B.R.S. drivers was made yesterday.

Mr. Davies: It is not connected with this debate. It is nothing whatever to do with this debate.

Mr. Nabarro: All I can say is that it is somewhat coincidental that they decided to make their strike threat yesterday evening in order to give hon. Members opposite something to talk about today

Mr. Short: The hon. Member said it was a fact.

Mr. Nabarro: The Whip, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), who should be silent in these matters, has just taken his seat and has not listened to any of the earlier arguments. He has just walked in. Whips, especially Opposition Whips, should be seen and not heard. The fact is that this controversy has now been going on for no less than eight years. I will remind the House of the words of Mr. Alfred Barnes, the then Minister of Transport, when he uttered his now famous remark which has appeared in every paper associated with this controversy ever since, and which I have in


my notes today. On 22nd March, 1951, Mr. Barnes said:
If in an industry, the employers and the trade unions do not accept their responsibilities, then after a reasonable time we must make our decisions irrespective of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 2627.]
A jolly good Co-operator was Mr. Barnes. He did not have too much regard for the sectional trade union interest which exists. I say "sectional trade union interest", because it is the Transport and General Workers' Union, not the Amalgamated Engineering Union, there being a split between them—

Mr. McLeavy: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has given way. He really is going much too far.

Mr. Nabarro: I am enjoying myself, though.

Mr. McLeavy: Yes; but I thought this was a serious debate on a very serious problem. Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to a split between two unions, I wish to make it perfectly clear, on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union, that we are the union which represents the men who will have to drive at 30 m.p.h. The other union represents the men who will produce the vehicles. I suggest to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that the bona fide trade union which has a right to express the only bone fide view on this matter represents those who will have to do the job.

Mr. Nabarro: I should not like to enter into any of the internecine strife between these unions. They must fight it out between themselves.
This is not essentially a trade union matter. The hon. Gentleman will have observed what so many people outside the trade unions have seen in regard to these drivers, many of whom have been plying at higher speeds than 20 m.p.h. or exceeding the schedules set down for this class of heavy goods vehicle. Why do many of these drivers object to the proposed change? I will tell the House.
Under the present arrangements they have been travelling at 28 to 30 m.p.h.—indeed, most of them do—and making up considerable time on the schedules, thereby being able to have several hours in the tea or coffee houses and cafés on the roadside.

Mr. McLeavy: Nonsense. That is a cheap sneer.

Mr. Nabarro: No, there is nothing cheap about it; it is a statement of fact. When this speed limit is increased and the schedules are altered, they will drive at the proper maximum speed of 30 m.p.h., and many of those wasted hours will be eliminated. That is a very good thing indeed for production, and one of the reasons for these Regulations which should surely appeal to every quarter of the House lies in the fact that it is a Measure for raising productivity.
I thought the leading "Opinion" column in the Daily Express of 30th January, 1957, succinctly expressed public opinion in this country, not minority opinion of a sectional trade union interest, reactionary and restrictionist in its outlook, namely the Transport and General Workers' Union, but public opinion as against that tiny minority. This is what the Daily Express said, under the heading, "Why the Fuss?" The article read:
After years of protests the absurd 20 mile-an-hour speed limit on lorries is soon to be raised to 30. Everybody knows that many lorries already travel at 30 anyway.
I pause there to interpolate that the leader writer of the Daily Express, in using the term "many", hardly exaggerated the case, because, in the eyes of the official observers, the proportion is 95 per cent.
Nobody can make a case that this is unsafe"—
except my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
But today the Socialists plan to attack the change. Their complaint is that the Government should wait until the lorry drivers' union gives the all clear.
Was there ever such nonsense? The artificial restriction on road transport, which causes a loss of millions of pounds every year, should have been abolished long ago. Britain's roads will never he cleared of congestion if there has to be a wrangle over every simple improvement like this.
I might have added to that apposite passage, "and never will Britain beat her overseas competitors so long as there are trade union restrictions of the kind inherent in the Opposition's case today," for that is all it rests upon.
I believe that the Minister's duty in this matter is to pay attention to all the very clear arguments which have been set forth under seven heads—I will go


through them very shortly one by one—and that he should act now, for that will not impose any duress upon the negotiating bodies. They have in hand the whole of the months of March and April, which gives them eight weeks, plus another week, namely next week—a total of nine weeks to finish their negotiations.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East was kind enough to quote a passage from an earlier speech of mine. I declare my interest at once. I am the President of the Road Passenger and Transport Association. I am a C-licence operator, on a considerable scale. That is nothing whatever to be ashamed of, and in fact I know a good deal about operating lorries, which gives me considerable knowledge within the realm of practical experience.
I said in Committee, and I repeat today, that I am the first upholder of the belief that, if we increase productivity in an industry, a proper and reasonable share of the profits and proceeds of the increase should go to the men who primarily create it, namely, the skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workers in the industry. This is what I said
I want this 20 m.p.h. speed limit raised to 30 m.p.h. It will result in a substantial increase of productivity; I declared my interest at the outset. I aver without any hesitation that a substantial part of the proceeds of increased productivity in this connection should accrue to the drivers. I want a sharing of profits resulting from the increased productivity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th December, 1955; c. 822–3.]
to go to them.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite would be entitled to interrupt me at once and say, What is meant by a "share of the profits"? I will tell hon. Members. Let the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, East carry it back to Mr. Frank Cousins, again with my compliments. I would say that, on 1st May, every long distance lorry driver working a 20 m.p.h. lorry should have an increase of £1 a week as his share of the increased productivity which is going to flow from the Regulations. Twenty shillings per week, I say, whether the vehicle be A-licence, B-licence or C-licence; that is what it is worth.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is closely in touch with Mr. Frank Cousins, and he must know that Mr. Cousins was willing, on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union, to settle for

12s. 6d. a week. That is what he was willing to settle for, but I would be willing to give them 20s. a week each, and I think most enlightened employers would be willing to do that too. But for goodness sake let Parliament alter the law, and then let the interested parties decide among themselves as to the division of the proceeds.
I conclude on this note. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), when I referred to these seven underpinning reasons for this long overdue reform, interrupted in Committee and said,
It is like the seven deadly sins."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 13th December, 1955; c. 816.]
I doubt whether they will be regarded by the operators, the owners, or the British public as sins. Here they are.
If these Regulations go through tonight, lower operating costs will result. Second, road safety will be improved. That is the professional opinion of the experts. I will not trouble the House by quoting it again; it was quoted during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill, and again on Report.
Third, we shall get rid of the ridiculous legal position so severely criticised by the Lord Chancellor in another place, whereby 95 per cent. of the vehicles already exceed 20 m.p.h. Let me say here that I am the strongest possible supporter of the law in this respect, and I hope that, when the speed limit is altered the police will enforce the 30 m.p.h. limit.
Fourth, and I say this in contradistinction to what was said by the hon. Member for Bradford, East, who purported to represent the lorry drivers, the drivers themselves will welcome it subject to an adjustment of pay. I say that because, having travelled long distances in the cab with them in order to find out about this, every one of them has told me that to drive a lorry at 20 m.p.h. over long distances, particularly at night, is the most wearying and fatiguing possible process. They would much sooner be able to drive at 30 m.p.h.
Fifth—and here I hope the hon. Member for Southall will corroborate this for me—greatly improved heavy vehicle design will result from this change, thereby directly aiding our export trade. Sixth, we shall see the end of the


ridiculous anomaly of a public service vehicle, a large double-decker bus for example, being permitted to travel at 30 m.p.h., whereas often a smaller lorry, if it is over three tons unladen weight, is still tied to 20 m.p.h.
Finally, I claim that, whatever may be the outcome of the negotiations to which I have referred—and, with the passing of these Regulations they will surely be expedited—there will be a financial benefit to the drivers.
That is the case, very shortly put once again. I hope that the House will support the views which I have expressed this evening, will warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend, thank him for the expeditious implementing of the promise which he gave on the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill last May, and vote overwhelmingly in support of this long overdue reform.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: It would be neither useful nor seemly to draw further attention to the frivolous and conceited performer who has just resumed his scat by making any reference at all to his quite mischievous diatribe. I am in favour of everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). Because they have made their points so well, I will not repeat them and, therefore, my speech will be considerably briefer than it might have been.
I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I am sorry to observe that he will not be able to be with us for the rest of the debate. One other objection I have to the introduction of the Regulations is that they are to be applied indiscriminately. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East reminded us earlier, road safety depends far more on the state of the road than on the speed of the vehicle. As everybody knows, British roads are about the worst in Western Europe. Everybody knows that the amount of money which is spent on road improvement is disgracefully niggardly. It is not nearly enough and other countries are spending ten times as much.

Mr. Nabarro: Ten times as much as the Labour Party spent.

Mr. Delargy: Money spent on roads is not money wasted, but is a definite investment. It saves lives, time and fuel, and road improvements should be regarded as investments and not simply as amenities. There are some roads which are considerably worse than others.
I want to refer to a special problem which has not so far been mentioned, a problem which has arisen since the war and which will concern many constituences. It is that very often since the war new towns and new housing estates have been built around old villages. The result has been that some thoroughfares, which formerly had been merely village streets, have now become very important highways. I will give one instance, because I know it best, and because I am sure that it is typical of many others. It is the village of Aveley in Essex. Aveley is a very old place. It was there before the Normans came and its main street has not been widened since the days of William the Conqueror. The village itself, however, has changed very greatly and changed more in the last few years than during the previous thousand.
The High Street, which was wide enough when a few farm carts trundled along it every few hours, is now used by thousands of people every day travelling to work at Dagenham and elsewhere. It is the main bus route to London and yet it is as narrow as it was when it was merely a small village passage. The residents in the area are so alarmed at the appallingly dangerous road that they have sent to me a petition, which more than a thousand people have signed, asking that in this case the speed limit should be decreased. It is a petition which I hope to present to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport at the conclusion of the debate and to which I am sure he will give his earnest attention. These people ask for a decrease in the speed limit to 15 m.p.h. for at least the most dangerous part of the High Street.
I am sure that there are examples like that all over the country. For those reasons, the Regulations should not be applied indiscriminately to every road, street and lane in the country. The only permanent improvement would be to widen all roads. I submit that until such


time as the Minister is able to carry out those road improvements and widenings, in areas like the High Street in Aveley, far from increasing the speed limit, he should decrease it to 15 m.p.h.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) has objected to the speed limit being increased because some of the roads in this country are not up to the standard he desires. I should like to point out that there are many countries where the roads are just as bad as, if not worse than, those in this country and where the speed limits—as I will show in a moment—are considerably higher than in England, Scotland or Wales.

Mr. Delargy: But I should object if I lived in those countries.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: That is not a valid objection.

Mr. Delargy: I cannot live all over the world.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I want to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). He put forward what I considered to be an extraordinary doctrine. As he knows, I have considerable sympathy with industrial workers and industrial managements. He suggested that it was wrong for Parliament to agree to anything until there was industrial agreement betweeen management and men. That is an extraordinary suggestion and is really an attack on the sovereignty of Parliament.
If we wished, without waiting for industrial agreement over wages between management and men, Parliament could say that all lorries should go at 50 m.p.h. On the other hand, as Members of Parliament we might well say—and perhaps we ought to say—that the financial benefits resulting from higher speeds and higher productivity should go, not to managements and men, but to consumers. If we said that, we should be perfectly within our rights. I hope that the Opposition will not try to prevent the country from changing these out-of-date methods and getting greater productivity.
Let us consider what other countries are doing in this situation. In Germany—one of our greatest industrial competitors, as every hon. Member will admit—

the speed limit is 37·5 m.p.h. In the Netherlands, a small built-up country like ours, the limit is 37 m.p.h. In Sweden it is 31 and in Norway 37 m.p.h. When the Queen was driving about the roads in Portugal yesterday, she would have had to exceed 31 m.p.h. to have overtaken a heavy lorry. In the U.S.A. and Canada the limits vary between 40 and 60 m.p.h., according to the State.

Mr. McLeavy: The House would be very interested to hear the state of the roads in those countries, and whether, and to what extent, there are motorways.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I reply willingly. In the Netherlands there is a certain mileage of motorways, perhaps 150, within the road network, but there are many small and narrow roads in the Netherlands and in Germany, Sweden and Norway where the speed limits are considerably higher.
I thought that hon. Members opposite had some concern for the interests of commercial drivers, or, anyway, for those connected with the unions. I am amazed at the lighthearted and cavalier way they have treated the interests of those drivers. Do they really expect the drivers of heavy commercial vehicles to continue grinding along at 20 m.p.h. for the rest of their lives? On the sides of some trunk roads, as drivers will remember, there used to be an old clock, an advertisement clock by Leylands, which said:
Leylands for all time.
Unless these Regulations are approved, the words on that clock will have to be changed to:
Law breakers for all time.
That is what hon Members opposite are asking 90 per cent. of the lorry drivers to be for all time.

Mr. G. H. Oliver: In that case they are not driving at 20 m.p.h.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: They are certainly not. About 90 per cent. drive at more than 20 m.p.h.
Last summer I drove up the A5, to run in a motor car. I drove at practically dead on 30 m.p.h. for about 100 miles on the London-Birmingham road. I, was amazed to find that I was overtaken by more lorries than I overtook.
On the subject of driver comfort, on an observed test over 100 miles, which


was made a few years ago, at 20 m.p.h. a lorry was overtaken 183 times. When it was running at 30 m.p.h. it was overtaken only 42 times. In other words, 141 vehicles were forced out of their path to overtake that heavy lorry. Moreover, at the slower pace set the lorry driver had much more work to do. He had not only the fatigue of driving slowly but had to make 102 gear changes when going at 20 m.p.h. but only 80 when he was going at 30 m.p.h. Let us face this fact, too, that the driver of an 8-ton bus in much more crowded conditions in London or any great provincial town is allowed to drive at 30 m.p.h.

Mr. Collick: Is the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should allow lorry drivers to go at 40 m.p.h. so that they may change gear less frequently?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am not going as far as that. I am only saying that there is less fatigue for a heavy lorry driver when he drives at 30 m.p.h. than when he drives at 20 m.p.h.
This out-of-date law has been a handicap to the export of our commercial vehicles. Our commercial vehicle exports have been too small for the last few years. A few years ago I was in Canada, and I was talking to the driver of a British lorry there. He was on the overnight run between Montreal and Toronto, a distance of 350 miles, and doing it regularly and regularly taking 10 hours every night. It was a Leyland lorry, for Leyland's were making an effort to sell their lorries in the Canadian market. That driver told me, "This British lorry goes very nicely on the flat, but I cannot understand why it goes faster uphill." He could not until he discovered that it was pushed uphill by giant American lorries behind him.
That instance illustrates the story of the struggle which we are having to sell our small British lorries in overseas markets, a struggle which has continued for many years. Of course, we have had to build lorries down to a weight limit of 3 tons. The chassis are too light, and their engines are too small, and the scantlings are too small, too.
What does the proposal of my right hon. Friend mean for productivity? I will give one or two examples of driving

experience in this country. Let us take, for example, a night's run of a heavy lorry from London to Macclesfield, a distance of 166 miles, at an average speed of 16 m.p.h.—or it may get to the outskirts of Manchester. Under the new schedule of 22 m.p.h. it could get from London to Preston or even Lancaster, 233 miles away.
Consider the journey to Newcastle, which will be of special interest to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). With the present schedule of 16 m.p.h. on a night's drive one can get from London to Doncaster. Then another driver has to take the lorry the next 100 miles or more the next day to Newcastle, too late, of course, for the goods which it is carrying to be delivered in Newcastle that day. With the new schedule a driver could get the lorry to Darlington, and the local driver could pick it up and run it into Newcastle in an hour and a half and deliver the goods in Newcastle, unload the lorry, and run it back to Darlington for the night driver to take it back to London that night.
A day could be saved by such an increase in vehicle usage and saving of time. I hope that not all the financial benefit will be shared entirely between the companies and the men. I hope some of the financial benefit will go to the consumers.
The only thing holding up the reform is the agreement about wages. Not a great many lorries are involved in this negotiation, only 70,000 out of 1 million C-licences. As we have heard, and I have no doubt, the holders of C-licences will come to an agreement. Eventually British Road Services will be able to come to an agreement likewise.
This is the dramatic, the 64-dollar question: can the Road Haulage Association come to an agreement with its drivers? I believe that Mr. Frank Fowler, who is Chairman of the Employers' Side of the Road Haulage Wages Council, could have made an overall settlement of this matter as long ago as 1947. I told him so at the time. I am absolutely certain that Mr. Fowler can make an overall settlement now while this present wages agreement is being negotiated. So I say to Mr. Fowler, "What about it? Do not hold back a reform which is twenty years old".
Whether as politicians or as businessmen we want this reform to go through smoothly. I was incredulous when the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) hinted that there might possibly be trouble over this long-desired reform. Imagine the Press cartoons if there were a strike. Just think of it—men striking to go at 20 m.p.h. when they are already going at 30 m.p.h. I do not think the Opposition in this case has any general public sympathy at all. Indeed, I think that if hon. Members opposite vote against this proposal they will become the laughingstock of the whole country.

Mr. Collick: That is a supposition.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Yes.
Do not let us lag behind Germany, the United States of America, Canada, Holland, Portugal, Australia and New Zealand, to mention only a few other countries. Come what may, I say that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to make these Regulations and to move this Motion, and that we shall be absolutely right if we approve them tonight.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: It is rather a pity that what ought to be a matter of objective debate has been rather bedevilled by the somewhat mischievous speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) which might more properly have been made by the Member for Kid the Minister. Some of the things which he said were of value, but he said many which were highly provocative, totally unnecessary, and added little to the burden of the debate.
The position now is that the two Front Benches are in agreement as to the desirability of raising the speed limit on heavy duty vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. Arguments have been adduced on this matter from many quarters on many occasions. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat them at length. One or two references have been made to them already.
One problem which has been mentioned is that of the inadequacy of our roads. We may contribute to the solution of this problem by raising the speed limit to 30 m.p.h. because it may in many cases be found better to use two lorries travelling at 30 m.p.h. instead of three at the

present limit. That may not be a good argument from the point of view of employment in the industry, but it may be a good argument from the point of view of productivity and proficiency. Moreover, if two lorries can do the work of three, that will relieve congestion on the roads.
Reference has been made to the attitude of the Road Haulage Association. I was hoping that the Minister would have delivered stronger castigation of its misdemeanours in this matter since 1947, because, as has been said, all has depended upon one section only of the employers' side. Had those employers taken a reasonable approach to the matter it could have been settled long ago, and the industry would consequently have benefited very considerably in the interim.
It is understandable that if the people who operate the vehicles have under the law a certain hold on affairs they should be anxious not to lose it. It is natural that they should be desirous of retaining it. In some respects it is unfortunate that the Minister has chosen this juncture to make these Regulations, when there are difficulties because of shortage of fuel, etc. It would have been better, perhaps, if he had made them in more normal times. The position of the unions would have been stronger; not that it is not strong enough at the present time, in my view.
I am in favour of these Regulations, and I should have liked to have seen them passed several years ago, but the difficulty ahead, as I see it, is that Parliament may well be placed in a very awkward position. If the Regulations are rejected, not on the merits of the speed limit but because there is not an agreement between the two sides of industry or with what is less than one-half of one side of the industry, it really means that Parliament becomes the arbiter in a dispute between the two sides about the proper level of wages. That is an important factor which we have tried to avoid in the past. The trade unions themselves have tried to avoid it when they have said, "We will negotiate and we do not want Parliament to interfere".
If the Regulations are not passed and the matter is left to negotiations, the employers may say that the trade unions want terms to which they will not agree.


Parliament will then have to say whether those terms are fair or not. I should not like Parliament to be placed in that difficulty until it is in a stronger position in relation to the overall negotiation of wages than it is at present. It would be an unfortunate precedent, and that is why I do not like wages to be tied up with the question of these Regulations.
It is the duty of Parliament, however, to see that no section of the community is unfairly or improperly treated and that no one section of the community should be able to hold the rest of the community to ransom. Agreement may be reached with the C-licence holders, the National Union of Manufacturers and so on, and with all sections except that which is composed of the most individualistic members in the industry, namely, the Road Haulage Association. I would have hoped that other sections of the industry might have been able to get that recalcitrant and awkward body to heel before now, and I still hope that they may be able to do that.

Mr. Nabarro: The quarrel is between the Road Haulage Association on the one hand and the Transport and General Workers' Union on the other. Why does the hon. Member follow the hon. Member for Enfield. East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and dub the Road Haulage Association as being the awkward body and the guilty party? Why not say that the Transport and General Workers' Union is also equally guilty?

Mr. Pargiter: The answer is easy. It is an established fact that the union will have no difficulty with British Road Services and with the C-licence holders. They are already agreed. Therefore, the quarrel is not with the union. Its point of view has been accepted as reasonable by the vast majority of the operators concerned, and they are prepared to agree to it. The exception is the one section of the employers who are the awkward squad, presumably supported by the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Nabarro: That is very unfair. I have dissociated myself today from the Road Haulage Association and on previous occasions. I have no sympathy at all with it and I am president of an organisation which is not in any way connected with it.

Mr. Pargiter: I hope that that will be conveyed to the Association.
Road safety is another important factor, and I have been concerned with it from an engineering point of view. The biggest danger on the road is the 30 m.p.h. machine which is carrying a legal load but, in relation to its capacity, is badly overloaded. The most useful vehicle is the heavy-duty vehicle properly constructed to carry its load. I have seen a 20 m.p.h. machine passing on a hill a vehicle scheduled and legally capable of travelling at 30 m.p.h., due to the fact that the power of the 20 m.p.h. machine was superior in relation to the load carried. I have seen the 20 m.p.h. machine, though still travelling within its legal limit, passing the other vehicle. That is not in the interest of road safety. If these Regulations have the effect of eliminating the present 30 m.p.h. machine in favour of a better and more robustly constructed vehicle it will be in the interests of industry generally and of road safety.
Reference has been made to the fact that the roads are not suitable for the 30 m.p.h. limit for these vehicles. I agree. I should be prepared to let the Minister have power to reduce the speed limit in particularly dangerous places until we have learned sense and have constructed proper roads, but in that case it would have to be applicable to all vehicles, because if the road is not capable of carrying a properly constructed vehicle at 30 m.p.h. it should not be carrying others at that speed.
The Minister will have to address himself, from the point of view of speed, to the problem of the narrow roads passing through towns. But it would be far better to have all vehicles moving in the 30 m.p.h. area at an even speed than to have some travelling at 20 m.p.h. and others trying to pass them, because that is the most frequent cause of accidents.
I do not like the timing of the introduction of these Regulations. It is ten years too late. I believe also that they should have been introduced at a time when there was not a shortage of fuel, because that shortage puts out of balance the power of one side of the industry in bargaining with the other. Nevertheless, now that the Regulations are before us I welcome them and I hope that the opportunity will be taken to end the


existing anachronism. It will be in the interests of road safety and it will be to the advantage of the export industry, because heavy-duty vehicles must be built on lines that will compete with that type of vehicle abroad and be at the same time capable of the necessary speed.
Although I have no intention of going into the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I shall not find myself in opposition to the Regulations. If they are approved and there is any section of employers who in the meantime prove so recalcitrant that they will not come to reasonable terms, I hope that the Minister, at some stage, will find ways and means whereby a proper level of wages and conditions can be established so that the men may benefit from the work required of them.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I find myself in complete agreement with most of what the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) has just said. I think that some Opposition speakers have made terribly heavy weather of this matter. They have taken a cyclotron to crack a nut. I agree completely with what has been said about the condition of the roads and the state of employer-employee relationships in the industry, but I cannot see that these problems are directly involved in what my right hon. Friend is asking us to do, which is simply to legalise the existing practice on maximum speeds.
A number of hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), spoke as though we were legalising a higher average speed on scheduled routes. We are not. That comes at a later stage. As the hon. Member for Southall pointed out, that is a matter for negotiation through the normal machinery of industrial relations. We ought to have those two aspects of the problem quite clear. What my right hon. Friend is asking is simply that we legalise what, according to road statistics, 95 per cent. of lorry drivers are doing—namely, driving above 20 miles per hour.
As to what may flow from that and what may be the maximum hours a man can reasonably be expected to do at the wheel, I have very great sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member

for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), but I suggest that that is a separate problem and that we shall completely bedevil the issue if we widen it into the issue of industrial relations within the industry.
The subject of speed limits has a long history in the House. I looked up the first debate on the subject that ever took place in the House, in 1896, when a Bill was introduced which became known as "The Motorists' Magna Charta." The law at that time required three people always to be in attendance to drive and conduct a locomotive, one always having to precede it on foot by at least twenty yards waving in his hand a red flag. I think the hon. Member for Enfield, East sees himself in that rôle. I hope his locomotive goes faster than 4 m.p.h. Judging by his attitude towards the technical progress represented in these Regulations, he would find difficulty in attaining that speed.
When that Bill was considered in Committee, a Clause was inserted to provide for a maximum speed limit of 14 m.p.h. That was heavily opposed by a Dr. Tanner, who represented County Cork in the House, He objected to any Bill that popularised machines which were antagonistic to horseflesh and, therefore, to genuine sport, and he suspected that the Bill was, in fact, just a good, old Semitic craze.
So well did that Act work that only seven years later, in 1903, in introducing the Motor Cars Bill, which went wider and covered certain sections of the vehicles which we are discussing today, the Government decided that there was no need for any speed limit. The President of the Local Government Board, introducing the Bill on Second Reading, said:
I am convinced if you simply say there should be a limitation on speed which shall be regarded by the public as security, that is no security.
I think those words have been proved by the practice we have seen on the roads in relation to the 20 m.p.h. limit. On Friday, 13th April last year, I took a lorry in my stomach. I understand that there was no question of the driver having limited himself to 20 m.p.h. when he drove into me. Consequently, I think the President of the Local Government Board was right in his recommendation to the House in 1903.
In spite of the President's recommendation, provision was made for a speed limit of 20 m.p.h. That caused considerable perturbation to certain hon. Members. The then hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Soares) observed:
Suppose you are driving along one of these roads in the dark and you sec approaching you two great acetylene lights—which are not at all beautiful—and that as it gets nearer the driver begins to blow the instrument called a horn. Not satisfied with that, suppose the driver has pulled out the sparking plug—I do not know whether that is the correct term or not, at any rate the thing which makes a noise like a Gatling gun—it does; I have heard it; suppose that horrible machine, with all that terrifying noise, rushes past you at the rate of thirty or forty miles an hour. However quiet your horses may be, if there is a ditch handy you will be sure to be in it.
We have tonight had very similar arguments from hon. Members opposite.
I should like to conclude by quoting to the hon. Member for Enfield, East the remarks of Mr. Redmond, who at that time represented Clare, East in the House:
There was one view expressed by an hon. Member which I hope will never be realised—that the day was at hand when horses would completely disappear from our streets, and when every sturdy artisan would be found careering along to his work on a motor bicycle. I say it reverently—God forbid that we should ever see such a day as that.
I feel that the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East was in the spirit of Mr. Redmond's remarks.
One cannot help feeling that if Mr. George Orwell were alive today the text to hon. Gentlemen opposite would be not "Big Brother is watching you" but "Big Cousins is watching you".

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I am sure the House will congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), even if it does not agree with what he says, upon his literary and historical researches into the subject of the speed limits on our roads. If we are cracking a nut, I would remind him that it has taken a very long time to do so. Since this proposal was initiated, there have been four or five Ministers of Transport, and four of them have declined to try to crack the nut. Now we have the "Wonder from Woking" coming along, and the proceeds to try to crack it.
I would remind the House that we shall not make technical progress unless we win the good will and co-operation of the workers in the industry in addition to providing them with up-to-date equipment. It is not sufficient in any industry merely to give a man a better, bigger, wider or longer machine or a machine capable of carrying twice as much when it has to be used on a road which has been very little altered in the last fifty years. It is no good spending money on such machines unless we obtain the good will of the operators. Whatever may be our view about the technical state of the road transport industry justifying an increase in speed, we cannot make progress in the search for improved efficiency unless we have the co-operation of the operators.
I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman has chosen this moment to bring about the alteration. He will realise, leaving aside who may be responsible for what is happening, that difficulties are being experienced by the road haulage operators. The Road Haulage Association has an office in Newcastle, and during the last six years I have had a great deal of correspondence with it, not all of it being complimentary. On 18th December last the secretary wrote me a letter complaining that the right hon. Gentleman was not being fair with private road operators in allocating petrol for commercial vehicles. I wonder whether that has anything to do with the fact that an agreement has not been reached. The secretary told me that many of the operators who had purchased vehicles with special A-licences from the British Transport Commission at high prices would be forced out of business because they would be unable, through loss of revenue, to keep up their hire-purchase payments.
The right hon. Gentleman played some part in making it possible for those people to acquire their vehicles. Then, if that letter is to be believed, he proceeds to drive them into the bankruptcy court through his policy in respect of petrol. Consequently, there may be some justification for the resistance of the Road Haulage Association. All I know is that the Road Haulage Association has not been co-operative in this matter in the years preceding the rationing of fuel. It was not co-operative when fuel was not in short supply. This may be an excuse behind which the Association can


hide, but the right hon. Gentleman is the excuse which it is using.
I wonder, therefore, why the Minister has seen fit to introduce these Regulations now. He made an optimistic reference earlier today, as did his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General yesterday, to the possibility of increased petrol supplies within the next few months. If they mean what they say concerning the petrol supply, would it not have been advisable to keep back the Regulations until there was no longer any excuse, fuel shortage or otherwise, for anybody to offer resistance.?
I remind the Minister that three of his predecessors, from his own party, declined to take the step that he is taking tonight. The right hon. Gentleman slipped up when quoting Mr. Alfred Barnes, because the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Scotland was at the Ministry of Transport and he made no attempt to introduce Regulations of this kind. Negotiations had been taking place beforehand. The present Colonial Secretary, when at the Ministry of Transport, never sought to introduce such a Measure without agreement.
The present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance also was at the Ministry of Transport, but he was not prepared to introduce such Regulations without agreement. Indeed, he said so in Standing Committee on the Road Traffic Bill. He said:
The Government have a certain duty in this matter, and this includes trying—as for some months we have been trying—to see whether a satisfactory measure of agreement on the consequences of this change can be found."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th December, 1955; c. 860.]
Are we not to be told why the present Minister feels more competent to introduce these Regulations following the experience of three of his predecessors?
There is still a volume of opposition to this Measure. If one listened to the speeches which have been made, with the exception of the speech by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), one would be led to believe that everybody else in the country was wholeheartedly in support of the Regulations. Is that really the case? Is it not a fact, that the Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs is opposed to them?
The right hon. Gentleman has another rod in pickle at the moment. He is trying

to get the 30 m.p.h. restriction relaxed on certain roads leading out of London. When I asked him on 30th January what progress he was making, he said:
Proposals for an experimental 40 m.p.h. speed limit on certain sections of main roads leading out of London are now being examined by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 174.]
I am advised on fairly good authority that the right hon. Gentleman is meeting the resistance of every single municipality represented on that body.

Mr. Watkinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Will he stand at that Box and deny that the representatives of the municipalities who are members of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee are not resisting his proposal to introduce the 40 m.p.h. limit on roads leading out of London?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Member will be kind enough to read the Answer which I gave to the House yesterday, which shows quite different results.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister now saying, therefore, that there is no resistance from the municipalities represented on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee? The Association of the Municipal Corporations is not happy about it either. In a letter to me the morning, it says:
The Association has more than once expressed the opinion that this relaxation of the speed limit should be permitted outside built-up areas.

Mr. Shepherd: What has this to do with the Regulations?

Mr. Jones: They will apply all over the country. If the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has not read the Regulations, I suggest that he should read them.

Mr. Shepherd: I have read them.

Mr. Jones: The Association of Municipal Corporations, comprising all the counties and municipal boroughs, has some comment to make, because this proposal will mean that the vehicles affected by it will be able to travel at 30 m.p.h. through those municipal boroughs. The Urban District Councils Association is opposed to the Regulations, not to mention the Cyclists' Touring Club,


the Pedestrians' Association and many of the Minister's road safety committees up and down the country. They arouse opposition also in the industry.
On 22nd January, in this House, the Minister used some very ill-chosen words about the railways, which created a good deal of resistance among the railwaymen. He did not improve the position on 6th February, when, in reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), he misquoted me in trying to explain away what he had said. In the same way, the right hon. Gentleman is arousing a good deal of resistance in introducing these Regulations to-night, and he ought to think again. He should realise that he will not get all the technical advance and advantages unless he can carry with him the good will and co-operation of the men who handle the vehicles.
What is the Minister seeking to do? While it is true that there are a large number of scheduled services operating—as far as British Road Services is concerned, they are also tramp services—there are many cases in which schedules are not suitable. A large number of private services do not have schedules but have maximum times laid down for the completion of a journey.
My constituency is 250 miles from London. With the present 20 m.p.h. restriction and an average schedule of 16 m.p.h., a heavy vehicle would take 15·5 hours to reach my constituency from London. By increasing the maximum speed to 30 m.p.h., the Minister will be enabling the schedule to be raised to 23 or 24 m.p.h. I prefer to take the lower figure. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask the operators of heavy vehicles to run them at an average increased speed of 7 m.p.h. At a speed of 23 m.p.h. a vehicle can complete 250 miles in eleven hours. Does the Minister really believe that he will get co-operation in the industry, and that the men who are now being paid daily or weekly rates—as many are—will agree to reach their destination four hours earlier and so permit their employers to get four more hours work out of them, without any increase in pay? That is what it really means.
Why has no agreement been reached about this? Why have those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have some influence in these circles not influenced the Road Haulage Association to accept an agreement? The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) claims that none of the C-licence operators has any objection to improved schedules and improved rates of pay. Indeed, he is on record as saying that in his view the drivers should receive additional remuneration. He said that during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. If the C-licence operators, who run about 60 per cent. of the total number of vehicles, are not opposed to improved conditions, and British Road Services are similarly not opposed to them, surely it is within the capacity of those people who speak for he C-licence operators to bring sufficient pressure to bear upon the recalcitrant minority to compel them to negotiate an agreement in order that this can be achieved.
What is the right hon. Gentleman doing by his action tonight? He is not holding the ring fairly between the two sides. He is putting all the negotiating cards in the hands of the employers, to the detriment of the employees. Instead of holding the ring fairly, as a Minister of the Crown should do in such a case as this, he is throwing his weight in upon the side of the employers and saying, "You cannot reach an agreement, therefore I propose to make Regulations." I am not sure whether he will be unduly worried whether or not an agreement is reached, until there is difficulty in the industry.
It would be much more in keeping with the actions of an impartial Minister of the Crown if he held the ring fairly between the two sides until an agreement was reached, giving what most decent people believe should be conceded—a decent improvement to the men who will be called upon to travel at 30 m.p.h. instead of 20 m.p.h. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) that if a driver is driving a heavy vehicle with a heavy load at 30 m.p.h. through the night for a five-and-a-half hour stretch, or for an eight-hour stretch with two short breaks, his fatigue is less than if he were driving at 20 m.p.h. In my judgment his fatigue is considerably greater. These matters


should have been taken into account by the Minister before he deliberately took sides in the matter by making Regulations.
In very many instances our roads are still completely unsuited for heavy vehicles, with heavy loads, travelling at 20 m.p.h., much less 30 m.p.h. How far is the Minister taking into account the safety of the public? Does it mean that if a driver cares to drive continuously for eleven hours—as he is allowed to do in certain circumstances, under the Road Traffic Act—he should drive at 23 m.p.h. throughout the night? Should not the safety element be taken into account?
Does not the Minister think that there is a maximum mileage which no driver should exceed without a long period for rest and refreshment? Or is he prepared merely to multiply 11 by 23 and say, "All right; if you can do the job, carry on for 11 hours at 23 m.p.h. and completely disregard the safety of other drivers, vehicles and pedestrians on the road, as well as all crossing places and villages through which the lorry must pass"? The safety aspect of the problem does not appear to have been taken into account.
In those circumstances, because the safety factor has been ignored and because the right hon. Gentleman has sought to take sides in this dispute when he should have been holding the ring fairly between the two contestants. I shall have pleasure in voting against the Regulations.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Jones) can rightly be described as one of the last remnants of the force of reactionary restriction which, for the last ten years, has been fighting against what is inevitable and very necessary for the benefit of the country. We have now reached the last refuge of the persons without an argument. They say that this is not the right moment. When people say that one realises that they have reached the rock bottom, and those opposing the Regulations have certainly reached the rock bottom.
No one can refute the arguments in favour of the Regulations. We shall have a better utilisation of our vehicles; a better design for export purposes; less

congestion upon the roads, and lower fuel consumption. All those are very admirable reasons for passing the Regulations.
The one complaint I have to make is that for six years a Conservative Government have had cold feet upon the issue. It is almost disgraceful that Cabinet after Cabinet have refused to do what was essential in the national interest because they were apparently in some way afraid of the trade union movement. If one considers something to be right it should go forward, irrespective of the opinion of the trade union movement. During the past four, five or six years we have been more mindful of what the unions have thought about the matter than what would best serve the nation. I hope that we shall not have another example of a Conservative Cabinet refusing to do something which is absolutely vital in the national interest simply because they have cold feet about the reaction of the trade unions.
I am a strong upholder of the trade union movement and fight its battle for it from time to time. I condemn those who, sitting in armchairs outside, talk about the movement in totally unfair terms, which indicate that they have no knowledge of industrial conditions. That is one thing, but it is an entirely different matter to acquiesce in the opposition of trade unions to something which is clearly in the national interest.
I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have not made the next point that I am going to mention, because it is at the root of the whole trouble. My view is that the standard wage for the long-distance haulage driver is absolutely farcical. When, some time after the end of the Second World War, I intended to employ the services of such a man, I was told that his wages were £5 19s. a week. I could not understand that a man with his responsibility should be paid so little. I was told by the manager that he would not earn as little as that, because he would get overtime.
The situation in the industry is very simple. Men are paid a ridiculous standard wage, and the only way in which they can bring it up to a living wage is by doing overtime. But they do not do real overtime. All they do is to run the vehicle at 30 or 40 m.p.h. and clock up whenever they find it convenient, putting in their time on the basis


of a schedule of 20 m.p.h. or less. On the difference between those two running times they make their living. That is clearly an absurd state of affairs, and it has been perpetuated by the refusal of consecutive Governments to put this matter on a rational basis.
Tonight I am glad to see that we are putting an end to this nonsense. As from the passing of these Regulations employers, whether the Road Haulage Association, C-licence operators or B.R.S., will have to pay their men on a realistic basis and not a basis of doing 16 m.p.h., when we all know that they are not doing that and are clocking up purely bogus overtime.
I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has now succeeded where his predecessors have failed. At last we are seeing the right thing done in respect of the speed limit. We are going to have a realistic approach and I hope that the same realism will be shown by the Road Haulage Association in dealing with the wage question. So far as I know, the Transport and General Workers' Union has at no time in the past five years put a price on increasing the speed limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h. I think that it is about time that it put a price on it and faced reality.

Mr. McLeavy: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent the work of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is one thing to say that it should put a price on it, but is it not better that the union should be prepared to negotiate in a sensible way without asking for a price which may be absurd in itself? Is it not far better to negotiate on the practical side of the problem and get a settlement based on a fair assessment of the rights of the workers?

Mr. Shepherd: I do not think that it is at all, if the situation is farcical and the only objection which the union really has is on the question of wages. I quite support the objection on those grounds. It's duty is not to put up the old pretentious argument against raising the speed limit, but to say what the men really want.
While I do not hold any brief for the Road Haulage Association, I think that the trade union movement is also to be condemned for failing to face up to

reality. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has not waited for those two sides to get together. They will have to get together after these Regulations are passed tonight, and I am sure that that will be for the benefit of all concerned.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. G. H. Oliver: I promise to sit down in five minutes from now at the most. It would appear from the discussions which have taken place this afternoon that the Transport and General Workers' Union, the principal organisation concerned in this matter, was a body of restrictionists which had no desire at all to increase the speed limit and no desire to increase the productivity of the industry. That is quite erroneous.
One or two hon. Members whom I see here—the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and other hon. Members who have spoken—all familiar faces when the Road Traffic Act was being discussed in Committee, know full well that the principal objection which has been lodged is that which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) stated earlier in the day.
It is 27 years since the existing speed limit was fixed, and it would be no compliment to British engineering if in that time improvement had not been made in the construction and equipment of this type of vehicle to make it as safe today at 30 m.p.h. as 20 m.p.h. was safe in 1930.
I was in the House when we discussed the 1930 Act. I discussed this matter with Mr. Ernest Bevin, Mr. Arthur Deakin, the present general secretary, Mr. Frank Cousins, and not one of them repudiated, in fact they welcomed, the idea of increased productivity for the industry. It is recognised that of the 133 trades which were shown in the Ministry of Labour Gazette in September last, the transport workers' average earnings were 117th down the list or, in other words, sixteenth from the bottom. In the same journal the average hourly rate was shown to be equally low.
The transport union and the transport workers are wise enough to know that if they are to obtain increased wages and better conditions and if the tariffs are to be lowered, it is only by increased productivity that that can be done. I cannot understand those hon. Members, particularly those who took part in the


Committee stage discussions on the Road Traffic Act, putting up a story tonight suggesting that there was no effort on the part of the transport union to see that the industry was brought up to date because the drivers were not concerned. They do not want to drive obsolete lorries and work to antiquated schedules and I am sure that they do not want to work for out-of-date employers. They want to see the employer brought up to date.
We have made it quite clear that it is not the British Road Services and the other organisations which have been referred to tonight with which the union or the industry has any difference. The nigger in the woodpile appears to be the Road Haulage Association. That is the body with which apparently no agreement can be reached.
I was very surprised when I heard the Minister use tonight the optimistic words that he thought things would go well. Those were precisely the words which he used in May last year. The last words that he uttered then on this matter were that there was a very happy relationship existing in the industry and that agreement ought to be come to very quickly.
Because the Minister is giving the advantage to the road haulage industry if these Regulations go through tonight—and they will go through by reason of numbers—that does not mean there will be a settlement in the industry on this matter. We are transferring the problem from the House of Commons to the industrial field.

7.18 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We have had an interesting debate, and I think it has followed the traditional pattern of these debates. Few subjects have been more fully discussed over recent years, both in Committee and in the House, and before I came to deal with it I read past records of debates with great interest. I should like to congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the House on the interesting, lucid and cogent arguments which they have advanced previously on this difficult subject.
Once again hon. Members on both sides of the House have advanced their arguments with their customary weight

and cogency. As I heard them rolling out, they sometimes made me think that they were not unlike the heavy vehicles about which we have been talking—heavy vehicles discharging from either side of the House. I make no comment on the speed with which they came, but I would say this or, the subject of speed. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) accused the Government of rushing these Regulations through. Whatever impression we may have in this House I do not think that public opinion will consider that Parliament is rushing them through. Generally speaking, and looking not only at this Administration but also at previous Administrations, including those of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think that public opinion feels it to be time that we tried to settle this problem.
I am sure that tonight the House will not wish me to recapitulate at length the arguments on the various points which have been discussed, both today and previously, by experts from both sides of the House. There are only two points on which I wish to make a few comments: first, on road safety, on which some hon. Members have what I am sure are sincere reservations, and which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page); and, secondly, on the main topic of this debate, the timing of the Regulations. Other than on those two matters, there has been general agreement among us, both today and in the past, that this step is something which is desirable and which will confer benefits all round.
On the topic of road safety, I should like to deal with one or two points raised by my hon. Friend. He referred to a recent Regulation made by my right hon. Friend which fixed the limit of width of vehicles at 8 ft. unladen and 9 ft. 6 in. laden. He complained that that was increasing the width of the vehicles, but there he was at fault. In fact, before that Regulation was made there was no limit to the combined width of a vehicle and its load. The Regulation relating to the 30-ft. length overall has been in force for a number of years. My hon. Friend admitted that there was no weight in his comment on the accident record of heavy vehicles in 1955, and I am sure that that would be confirmed by the House.
On a point which I feel commanded general interest, I think that I ought to add this further comment. My hon. Friend argued that if the limit is raised from 20 to 30 m.p.h. there was no better prospect of enforcement than at present with the 20 m.p.h. limit. I can say without qualification that there is a better prospect. The 30 m.p.h. limit is commonly enforced by the police in built-up areas, and there is a reasonably practical possibility that the police will be able to enforce this. I can assure the House that so far as the influence of my right hon. Friend and myself goes, we shall do our utmost to see that it is enforced. It is clear that there is a far better prospect that it will be enforced.

Mr. Collick: Is it so clear? If, according to information which has come from the hon. Gentleman's own side of the House, 95 per cent. of drivers exceed the present speed limit of 20 m.p.h., what assurance can we have that there will not be some who will exceed it when it is legally 30 m.p.h., and travel at 40 m.p.h.?

Mr. Nugent: I agree that it is a matter of opinion. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit is fairly frequently, commonly and generally enforced by the police in built-up areas. Therefore, it is obviously a less difficult matter to enforce than is the 20 m.p.h. speed limit.
On the matter of speed limits I would say particularly to those who argue that the 20 m.p.h. limit should be retained that, of course, the slower a vehicle goes the safer it will be, so far as speed alone goes. But we have to think about traffic flow, and I noticed an interesting comment by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) during the Committee stage discussions on the Road Traffic Act, that we could make the roads so safe that not a wheel would turn. We must arrive at a reasonable balance between the necessities of traffic flow and the necessities of road safety and so, with my right hon. Friend, I say roundly that 30 m.p.h. for the modern heavy vehicle is not an excessive speed; and that the brakes of such vehicles are sufficient to keep them reasonably safe.
Turning to the question of general concern, the matter of timing—

Mr. George Jeger: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about the safety of heavy vehicles on the road, will he give an answer to the charge made from this side of the House that it takes longer for a private car to pass a heavy vehicle travelling at 30 m.p.h. on a narrow road like the Great North Road than it would take to pass a heavy vehicle travelling at 20 m.p.h.; and that, consequently, there is a double line of traffic for a longer stretch along the road, and a longer period of time when there is less safety?

Mr. Nugent: I hesitate to go into that argument in detail. It has been discussed in great detail on other occasions, and I feel that I should not detain the House unreasonably by discussing it now.
There is no difficulty in facing this point. I recollect reading a very interesting argument developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), who referred to his experiences in Cornwall in passing heavy traffic. It it a fact that where a heavy vehicle is travelling at 20 m.p.h. on a narrow winding road, with a queue of traffic behind it, there is an element of danger in that one of the following vehicles may—as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—be a lorry which is allowed to travel at 30 m.p.h. and which may try to pass the heavy vehicle on that narrow road. If such a stream of traffic is travelling at 30 m.p.h. on a narrow road where no passing should take place, there is a better prospect that passing will not be attempted than if the stream is travelling at 20 m.p.h. But again it is a matter of judgment. That is my opinion which I am giving to the House.
The benefits of these Regulations have been referred to at great length by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, with his "seven deadly sins", and I will refer merely to the three main benefits which they confer. First, there is the benefit of increased productivity. I was delighted when the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) so roundly asserted that the trade union interest is no less than that of anyone else in wishing to see increased productivity. That is just the note which would prove acceptable to the House, it is something which appeals to all hon. Members. It is not only a matter of benefit to the


employer and employee. Let us, as one of my hon. Friends exhorts us, also think of the poor consumer, the person who uses the transport, and of the national interest generally. We wish to see a fair balance, and we wish to see everyone benefit from increased productivity.
The present Regulation undoubtedly has a retarding effect on design. It tends to give an incentive to the building of overbodied vehicles which have an unladen weight below the present limit. If we remove that, there is no doubt that there will be a benefit in design for the export markets.
Everyone has observed that the law at present is widely disregarded, and the effect of raising the speed limit will be to bring the law generally into line with common practice. These are substantial benefits which we all desire. The only objection is to the timing of the Regulations. The employers' representatives and the trade union representatives—

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman now laying down the doctrine that the way to get a change in the law is to break the law, to defy it, and that if we break and defy the law long enough, the present Conservative Government will amend the law so that we can comply with it?

Mr. Nugent: No. I do not think that my remarks could be understood to carry that meaning.
Over the years both sides of this important industry have discussed the problem at length without reaching conclusions. The number of vehicles involved today is 71,000 C-licences, 12,000 A- and B-licences in the British Road Services and 39,000 A- and B-licences outside the British Road Services.

Mr. Nabarro: That is just what I said.

Mr. Nugent: British Road Services are optimistic that they will reach agreement. As my right hon. Friend said, in opening the debate, the Road Haulage Association is prepared to negotiate on the principle that no employee is to be worse off as a result of the increased limit and, secondly, that any increased dividend resulting from higher productivity should be divided in agreed ratio between management and men. That seems to be a fair basis, and I believe that when the

increase becomes fact instead of theory, good sense will prevail and agreement will soon be reached.
In reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), I am afraid I must tell him that even if agreement is not reached by 1st May, if the Regulations have been approved by Parliament, the limit will be raised. I should like, however, to add this: I do not doubt that the Road Haulage Association will take note of the concern of the House, which has been expressed on all sides today, for a harmonious settlement and will interpret these principles fairly, as also will the transport workers' representatives in their part of the negotiations.
I should not like there to be any doubt that my right hon. Friend and I fully recognise that full co-operation and harmony in the industry is a vital part of this matter. As has been rightly said, at the end of the day it is the drivers who have to drive the vehicles at these faster speeds, and unless their co-operation can be obtained nobody will get the benefits to which I have referred. Nevertheless, I would say to the hon. Member for Enfield, East and the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who accused my right hon. Friend of endangering labour relations and favouring the interests of the Road Haulage Association, that I completely reject their accusation. My right hon. Friend and his predecessors have tried to keep a fair balance in this matter.
The facts are against the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. The record in this matter stretches back over the last ten to thirteen years. I read with interest that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) thought some ten years ago that he had achieved agreement. It slipped away from him again. The fact is that successive Ministers of Transport have struggled with this matter over the last ten or so years. It has been like a scene from Dante's Inferno for Ministers of Transport. It has been like Sisyphus trying to push the stone up the hill. Each time they were in sight of the brow of the hill the stone rolled back again to the bottom.

Mr. D. Jones: If the hon. Member is making that point now, may I point out that hon. Members opposite had every


opportunity in 1951, 1952 and 1953, when they had the Road Haulage Association where they wanted it. Why did they not take the opportunity then?

Mr. Nugent: I think that the record to which I have referred is a fair point to make. One Minister after another drawn from both sides of the House have struggled to reach agreement on this matter between the two sides. I say roundly to the House that this history is a conclusive argument that agreement simply cannot be reached until the Regulations have been approved. Is there any prospect that if we waited for another year, or even two years, agreement would be reached? I say roundly to the House that after the record of the last twelve years there is no prospect at all.
Bearing in mind the great benefits which can flow from this change to the drivers, to the employers, and to the national economy, we should not hesitate to give the prospect of those benefits to the nation by raising the limit. Let us send out a message from here tonight to both sides in these negotiations that we expect them, when we have raised the limit, to proceed with all speed to reach a sound and fair agreement. I ask the House to approve the Regulations.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: We have heard much in the debate of the failure of various road employer organisations to reach an agreement with the unions about certain matters. I want to submit to the House that that is not an issue upon which the House should decide a matter of this kind. The House has before it the question whether it will sanction Regulations whereby the speed limit for heavy road vehicles shall be increased from 20 to 30 m.p.h. In my view, there is only one question which the House should consider in this connection: will the increase in the speed of these huge vehicles increase public safety or not? The number of casualties on the roads of Britain at the moment is a positive scandal—and that is the only question the House should consider.
The Minister made as a substantial part of his case the point that 95 per cent. of these lorries are exceeding the 20 m.p.h. limit and are travelling at nearer to 30 m.p.h. If the House approves these Regulations the lorries

will be legally entitled to travel at 30 m.p.h. Everybody knows that in practice, instead of travelling at 30 m.p.h., many of them will travel at nearer 40 m.p.h. Does anybody suggest that to allow these heavy lorries to travel at these speeds on our roads will increase road safety? In my judgment it will not.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) this afternoon put forward a wonderful case on the road safety aspect of the matter. His speech has passed completely unanswered. In my judgment, the House should not approve the Regulations. If the Minister lived on a main road out of London and had experience of the vibration, noise and speed of these vehicles, he would not ask us to increase the speed limit.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Gentleman said there was no answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Is he not aware that as long ago as 1947 the Committee on Road Safety reported that, having regard to the improvement in braking equipment, they saw no objection on grounds of safety to increasing the speed limit?

Mr. Collick: I am not concerned about the 1947 Report but about the speech made today by the hon. Member for Crosby. I say that his speech has gone unanswered. No one can deny that it has been completely unanswered. If the Government had any regard to the enormous number of casualties which occur on our roads, they would not be a willing party to the indiscriminate application of this increased speed limit. Under existing conditions we can have two lorries on a 20-ft. road, completely blocking the road; but in spite of that, under the Regulations the speed limit for those vehicles is to be raised to 30 m.p.h. In my judgment, if the legal 'speed limit is raised to 30 m.p.h., and possibly 35 to 40 m.p.h. in its practical application, it means an increase in the numbers of deaths and other casualties on the roads. Any Minister ought to have some concern for that aspect, but it has gone completely unanswered from that Front Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman talks of increasing the flow of traffic in the pipeline. To anyone who knows anything about traffic conditions, London traffic conditions, main road traffic conditions before


the petrol shortage, to talk about an increase in the flow is quite absurd, and the Minister must know that from his own experience. Therefore, I say that it is quite wrong for the House to pass these Regulations. There is no party issue on this, and we should have considered it absolutely on a non-party basis.
I should have liked to have seen the House, on both sides, discussing the matter solely in relation to its influence

on road safety. That is the basis upon which the House should have decided, but that aspect has not been touched upon either by the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. For that, if for no other reason, the House would, if it were doing its duty in the public interest, reject these Regulations as they deserve to be rejected.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 151.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[7.41 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Aitken W. T.
Grimond, J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp;amp; Chr'ch)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Harvey, Alr Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Osborne, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Armstrong, C. W.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Ashton, H.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Atkins, H. E.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Baldwin, A. E.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Barber, Anthony
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pitman, I. J.


Barter, John
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pott, H. P.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hope, Lord John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hornby, R. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Rawlinson, Peter


Bidgood, J. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Redmayne, M.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Howard, John (Test)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Black, C. W.
Hurd, A. R.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hyde, Montgomery
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Robson-Brown, W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Iremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Braine, B. R.
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooman-White, R. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.




Campbell, Sir David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, R. S


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharpies, R. C.


Channon, Sir Henry
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, D.
Speir, R. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keegan, D.
Spent, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt. -Col. J. K.
Kerr, H. W.
Stevens, Ceoffrey


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kimball, M.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, P. M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cunningham, Knox
Leather, E. H. C.
Storey, S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Teeling, W.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Temple, J. M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp;amp; Chiswick)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Lt. -Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, S. J.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thomton-Kemsley, C. N.


Finlay, Graeme
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Turner, H. F. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fort, R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Foster, John
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp;amp; Lonsdale)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Freeth, Denzil
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mathew, R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.


Godber, J. B.
Mawby, R. L.
Wall, Major Patrick


Gough, C. F. H.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp;amp; Border)




Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)
Woollam, John Victor
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholofield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie
Paton, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Peart, T. F.


Barter, John
Hannan, W.
Pentland, N.


Benson, G.
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beswick, Frank
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Blackburn, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Redhead, E. C.


Bowles, F. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reeves, J.


Boyd, T. C.
Hunter, A. E.
Reid, William


Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Brookway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Burke, W. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp;amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Short, E. W.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Skeffington, A. M.


Chapman, W. D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, J. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lawson, G. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sparks, J. A.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp;amp; Finsbury)
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cove, W. G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cronin, J. D.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Daines, P.
MaoDermot, Niall
Thornton, E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Tomney, F.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Mahon, Simon
Warbey, W. N.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Messer, Sir F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Monslow, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Fernyhough, E.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fienburgh, W.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fletcher, Erio
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Franois (Swindon)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Goooh, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Greenwood, Anthony
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Owen, W. J.



Grey, C. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Simmons.

Resolved,
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS DUTIES (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

7.51 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 20, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir David Eccles.
I see that there is an Amendment to my Motion which, if you were to call it, Mr. Speaker, we should not oppose.

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 8, page 6, lines 33 and 42, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Gordon Walker."—[Mr. Gordon Walker.]

Question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CASES WHERE CUSTOMS DUTIES MAY BE IMPOSED.)

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, after "goods", to insert:
(whether by grant, loan, tax relief or in any other way and whether related directly to the goods themselves, to materials of the goods or to something else).
We put this Amendment down to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and I conclude from the fact that he has seen fit to make the gesture in public of adding his name to mine that he is content with my Amendment.
This was a point which the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) also raised, and it touches the description of a subsidy. We thought that the Bill as it stood allowed every form of subsidy to be caught, but I saw the force of the argument from both sides of the House that we should go into some greater detail.
The right hon. Gentleman was particularly concerned that we should include in the definition of subsidy, finance provided for the production of raw materials.

We thought we should go a little wider than that while we were about it, and we have made the description pretty well cover anything. In fact, the words are:
(whether by grant, loan, tax relief or in any other way and whether related directly to the goods themselves, to materials of the goods or to something else)".
I am bound to say that I was surprised when I saw the words "or to something else", but I am assured that certain circumstances could arise, which it is impossible to foresee now and which might necessitate the use of some such words. An example might be that some subsidised chemicals were dumped in another country and were used in the process of manufacture, and then changed their nature, and unless we have some phrase of this kind those would not be included.
I hope the Amendment meets with the wishes of the Committee as expressed during the previous stage.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for giving effect in such comprehensive and spacious terms to the pair of Amendments moved and supported by a considerable number of my hon. Friends and myself earlier in the Committee stage.
I wish to say that my right hon. Friend has found a form of words which, though a part of them may appear to be little unusual in an Act of Parliament, certainly casts the net very wide indeed, and I believe will cover a substantial number of contingencies, remote or otherwise, apprehensions upon which were expressed in the earlier part of our Committee deliberations. I am very grateful to my Light hon. Friend for his help.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. James Ramsden: I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend could say a few words about the application of this Clause as it now stands to the problems of the leather industry, or of one section of that industry. The points that I have in mind were raised during an earlier stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Is the hon. Member speaking about the Clause as amended?

Mr. Ramsden: I am speaking of the effect of the Clause as it now stands.

The Deputy-Chairman: Only as affected by this Amendment, of course?

Mr. Ramsden: It may be that what I am trying to raise is not in order, but in view of the misunderstanding which I think was caused earlier on by my right hon. Friend, he might feel inclined to make one or two reassuring comments about the doubts which have been raised in the leather industry by this Bill and, particularly, by this Clause—points with which I think my right hon. Friend is perfectly familiar. I will not amplify them at the moment in case I am out of order in doing so.

Sir D. Eccles: I am afraid that I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) that the Amendment does not alter the position as stated before, namely that the particular form of export control which has caused trouble to the leather industry in this country remains outside the scope of the Bill, as does the Indian export control over their raw cotton and our own treatment of steel.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, ETC.)

Mr. H. Rhodes: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out "cost of production" and insert "export price".

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the two other Amendments to this Clause, both in page 6, line 42, one to leave out "cost of production" and insert "export price", and the other which seeks at the end to insert:
Provided that the Board of Trade may by order provide that in relation to goods of the description specified in the order this subsection shall have effect with the substitution for references to twenty-five per cent. of the export price of references to some other percentage thereof.

Mr. Rhodes: I can assure the President of the Board of Trade that we would be

prepared to be gracious and add our names to his if he would treat us as he has treated the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabaro), whom he has treated very generously in giving way to him on the previous Amendment. We would be prepared to append our names to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments if he would treat us in the same way.
8.0 p.m.
As Clause 8 stands, it stipulates that an added value of 25 per cent. is sufficient criterion for establishing national origin. This is one of the most important points in the Bill. We seek, by this Amendment, to give the Board power to vary the percentage for specific purposes. As the Bill now stands, processed steel, processed cloth, or any other commodity which acquires an additional 25 per cent. in value in a country of export, is regarded as having originated in that country. I put it like that because that is as clear a definition as I can get in this very involved subject.
May I give an example of what I mean? Let us suppose that Germany imports Japanese cotton cloth and processes it, adding 25 per cent. to its value. That cloth can then be exported to this country, within the terms of the Bill as it now stands, without any definition whatever in respect of whatever dumping qualification there may be in it. I mention Germany in particular because Germany, when it imports cloth from a low-wage country like Japan, does not allow any of that cloth to be sold in Germany; it must be exported, and it is reasonable to assume that much of it will be directed to markets here.
My next example is this. A country desirous of dumping into one country can find another country—Sweden is an example—with a very large home market for a particular type of textile, but which is very good in the working and processing of, let us say, prints on grey cotton cloth or bleached cotton cloth, very able and clever with design but with a comparatively small home market for that particular type of material. There are very few sales into the home market in Sweden, since it would not be possible to sell the goods anyway, yet that would, according to the Bill, determine a fair market price for the product. In fact, it might be considerably below the home


market price in the country which has dumped the stuff in Sweden to be partially worked and then sent it here in order to undercut our own trade in that cloth.
This is my third example. A dumping country may select a well-known processing country, for instance Holland, which is first-class at processing textiles and many other things, or Switzerland, where people show great skill with the intermediate processing of raw materials from elsewhere. The dumping country can create a low market figure in either Holland or Switzerland by dumping into those countries as well, lowering the value of the goods, thus giving the dumping country the opportunity, through either Holland or Switzerland, to get those goods into this country and obtain the trade. This is rather different from my second illustration because in those circumstances a fair market price is, or could be, produced because in the intermediate country the price has been reduced through the impact of the material in that country.
What is the position likely to be as regards intermediate products from countries such as America or the Iron Curtain countries at present? Let me take a likely commodity, nylon polymer; many American industrialists are engaged in the manufacture of nylon polymer and are hoping to supplant rayon in the tyre fabric trade. It would be perfectly easy for them to ship their surplus product to Germany, have 25 per cent. added on, and thus have the product regarded as a German material inside the Free Trade Area.
It might be thought that there is a slight exaggeration in these examples, but I assure hon. Members that there is not. The instances which I have given are as nothing compared with the kind of tortuous path which materials took in the days before we introduced the antidumping Regulations in 1931. Indeed, there is no more justification really for some of the principles which have been expounded on the subject of the Free Trade Area now than there was years ago. I do not see that we are in any better position to compete today than we were at the time when the Regulations were introduced in 1931.
The Board of Trade is taking too narrow a view. It ought to lift its sights a little and look into the other countries

which may be offenders besides the likely ones which process materials. It should be remembered, in regard to some of the commodities which we have imported from abroad, that the home prices in the original country for certain of them have very often been higher than the prices of the same product exported from an intermediate country, when the original country has been wanting the trade.
If it is said that the variation in percentages cannot apply, does the President of the Board of Trade think that we shall get within the percentage plan if we join the Free Trade Area? I do not think that it is possible to get away from the percentage variation. When it comes to settling the conditions of trading in the Free Trade Area there will have to be calculated a whole series of graduated percentages on materials and the working of materials in the transition stage between now, when the variations are applied, and some years hence, when the variations are completely removed. If the graduated percentages apply in cases of that sort, we can make them apply in this case.
One of the important objects of these proposed powers to vary orders about the 25 per cent. origin qualification is to enable the President to fix a higher percentage and to get a proper qualification of origin in other countries. I ask the President of the Board of Trade seriously to consider this matter.
While I am on my feet, I should like to pay a compliment to the Minister of State, who has been so courteous in the talks which I have had with him.

Mr. Richard Fort: I want to add one more point to what was said by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). It is to ask my right hon. Friends whether the use of the export price would not simplify the operations of the Customs and Excise. I should have thought that the Customs and Excise would have found it a good deal more difficult to operate on the costs of production, which are much more easily juggled by adjustments of overheads and so on. One of the arguments for the use of the export price is the simplicity of administration.
The other matter on which I should like to hear their comments is whether or not the use of the export price would,


as has been suggested to me, make the operation of the whole Free Trade Area rather easier, in the sense that it is more likely to be the basis for the prices on which variations in that area will be based, than will cost of production. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to cover those two small points when he replies.

Mrs. Eirene White: I should like to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). Owing to absence on a Parliamentary delegation, I was not able to take part in earlier discussions on the Bill. I know from my connections with the rayon industry, which has very large factories in my constituency, that the manufacturers of manmade fibres are very concerned about the Clause. They are very anxious that there should be a possibility of variable provision, because the disparity between the different man-made fibres will make for very great variety. What would be very suitable for one branch of manufacture may be quite unsuitable in another.
This is an industry in which fresh discoveries are made almost every day. It is felt that a fixed percentage, as suggested by the Clause, would not necessarily be the best way of protecting ourselves from possible dumping. I am enboldened to say a few words because of the remarks of the Minister of State when he suggested that we might return to this matter on Report.
8.15 p.m.
It has been suggested to me that one of the arguments in favour of having a variable percentage is precisely one of the matters to which he referred, that it is possible that this method may be favoured in negotiations on the Free Trade Area. If that is so, it would be more sensible to have our own legislation framed in a way that could dovetail with that. On the matter of whether one should have a basis of export price rather than production cost, I am not an expert in this matter, but the former method seems to me to have some clear advantages. The people in this country who are most concerned—because they themselves are manufacturers—are very worried about the possibility of unfair competition and are dissatisfied with the Clause as it now stands. They have sent urgent representations to some of us on

this matter, and I feel that we are entitled to further justification by the Government of their attitude. We hope that they will be able to accept the Amendment.
I cannot help feeling that when disquiet is felt, as it clearly is, by people who have spent their lives in the trade and who are very great exporters and who have considerable experience in Commonwealth countries as well as in this country, we need a much more substantial explanation than was given by the Minister of State earlier about why the Government persist with the proposals in the Clause. Perhaps they have had second thoughts and are now rather more flexible about the matter.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We have heard two very well argued speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will have an open mind on this matter. There are two clearly related issues. One is whether we should work on export price or cost of production. As the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) said, there is a good deal to be said—leaving aside the major issue, which comes later—for substituting export price for cost of production. Cost of production is a somewhat metaphysical sort of thing which is very difficult to define—there can be all sorts of arguments about it—whereas an export price is a precise, known and knowable thing. From that point of view, I should have thought that the first two of the Amendments which we are discussing together would be desirable, whatever may be thought about the third and main one.
On the main Amendment, there is a very grave difficulty to which we will expose ourselves in what might be called dumping at one remove. I do not mean that this should be used just as a protection measure, but we might get dumping, as defined in the Bill, at one remove and be powerless to do anything about it. A country could export to another country something which would be dumped in the terms of the Bill, but that second country could add only 25 per cent. of the value in processing which, under the 25 per cent. qualification, would change the


nationality of the goods so that those originally dumped goods would become the goods of the new country which could then export the goods to us. They would be no longer dumped within the terms of the Bill, because there would be no longer any difference between the cost of production of the then exporting country and its export price to us. In fact the thing would be dumped, and would be dumped by dumping as defined in the Bill.
If the United States, for instance, sent processed goods to Belgium at a price which would be a dumping price under the terms of the Bill, and then Belgium added 25 per cent. to the value, they could be imported here, as I understand it, under the Bill without our being able to do anything about it. I have not at any time wanted to turn the Bill into a general protection Measure, but I want it to be truly an anti-dumping Bill, and it does not seem to me to be a truly antidumping Bill without the proposed Amendment.
From all we hear it seems that the Free Trade Area is to define country of origin in the terms of some sort of shifting scale of percentage. That seems to be extremely probable. If we do not make this Amendment now the final Act will have to be amended, because if that does happen we shall have to have powers to operate in the same sort of way as other countries in the Free Trade Area.
The President will notice that we are giving him a power but not giving him an order. This is a permissive power. Of course, we all hope that it would not have to be used very often. The President himself on Second Reading of the Bill said of the Bill as a whole that he hoped it would have to be used at most only very occasionally. He said that the fact that the powers existed would make it unnecessary to use them. That argument applies here. We certainly hope this power will not have to be used, that the existence of the power will make it unnecessary to use it except in very flagrant cases. We think that if the power exists people will be careful not to bring themselves within the mischief of this provision. They will not, if they know it exists.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, it would be easier for us to enter the Free Trade

Area without having to amend the Measure again if we had this power in it. This power would enable us to go into the Free Trade Area; and if it decided to define country of origin by a sliding scale of percentages, we should be able to participate without having to amend this Measure.
So for reasons of convenience and administration, and because there is a real risk that genuinely dumped goods which will not come under the terms of the Bill unless the Amendment is made may get into our home market, I very much hope the President will seriously consider making this change, either using the words we propose or, if necessary, by causing an Amendment to be made in another place.

Sir D. Eccles: As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, there are two questions here. The first one is whether we base ourselves upon the export price or the cost of production. In asking the Committee to stand by the cost of production I hope it will be remembered that what we are trying to do is to find the most proficient system for dealing with goods in which there is a partial element of dumping. We want to stand by the cost of production, because if the percentage which we choose as a qualification for putting on the duty—the percentage of dumped components or raw materials—is based on the cost of production, the manufacturer knows all about it. He has the requisite knowledge. He can certify the facts, that is to say, the cost of the material before he processed it, the cost at which he purchased it, and, the other thing which is important, the amount spent on the processing itself. The exporter does not know that and it would be very difficult indeed to get from him the real facts which we want to know to determine whether the percentage selected is exceeded or not.
The export price, of course, contains a profit and various other additions, and those can be much manipulated so that the very object of the Bill which we desire, that is to catch the dumped proportion, may be defeated, may be obscured by the addition of a very fat margin, or two margins or three, by the time the export price is calculated.
If hon. Gentlemen will consider what it is we have to do, which is accurately


to determine that content in a mixed article which is the dumped content, they will see that we cannot get it as well by basing ourselves on the export price as we can if we base ourselves on the cost of production.

Mr. John Cronin: How will the information about the cost of production be obtained? Will it be obtained simply from a simple declaration by the producer? He is the original potential dumper.

Sir D. Eccles: The manufacturer will fill up a certificate and then we shall check that in the country of origin.

Mr. Rhodes: Will it be a sworn certificate?

Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State says it will be authenticated, but it is going to be difficult to get at the information. This is a problem, and I have no doubt that, at any rate to start with, it will tie only the really blatant cases in which we shall be able to proceed, cases in which there is no doubt at all about dumping. As we go on we may, perhaps, get greater experience of how to check these domestic figures.
The object of the Clause is to prevent indirect dumping. Country A sends dumped goods, or unfairly priced materials, to country B, Which processes them and then exports the finished article to the United Kingdom. The question is, how much work should be done on those dumped materials before the content of the dumping can be considered to be removed? Naturally, that is a matter of judgment, and naturally it does, no doubt, seem rather arbitrary to take a fixed percentage over the whole range of goods.
8.30 p.m.
However, the advantage of having a fixed percentage known to both importers and exporters over the whole range of goods is very great indeed and should not be lightly abandoned. We had this figure of 25 per cent. in the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It is used for determining the origin of goods qualifying for Imperial preference. We do not rest our case on those two examples, but the latter is in fact still working. We believe

that to add 25 per cent. is about right to prove that a job has been done on the material in another country.
If we were to accept the Amendment we should have a flexible rate. In other words, there would be no foreknowledge in respect of a particular article what proportion of that article we considered it was necessary to have added in order to escape an anti-dumping duty. Hon. Members will realise what that would mean for the Board of Trade. Every industry that thought it was going to be injured would say that in its case 30 per cent. would do. The next would say 40 per cent. and the next 50 per cent., and, as the right hon. Member for Smethwick very rightly said, that brings in protection.
If we do not provide for a rate of 25 per cent., attempts will be made to use the Bill as a protectionist Measure. We have said from the beginning, and the Opposition agrees with us, that this is an anti-dumping Bill. I am quite clear that we must have a percentage, otherwise we would come to have the case, for example, that Japanese screws are dumped into Belgium and put into a Belgian locomotive and the locomotive manufacturers here say to me that because there is an element of dumped goods in the Belgian locomotive I must put a duty on it to keep it out. We should always be arguing these cases, and I do not see how we could avoid having pressure to use the Bill for straight protection and not against dumping. That is one reason against the Amendment.
Another reason is that no other country has this legislation at present, and it is very dangerous to put into a British Act of Parliament a power which we might use very sensibly but which if copied might have the gravest effect upon our exports. It is certainly in our interest as a great trading country to be as precise as we can when we take powers of this kind.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) asked me about the European Free Trade Area. I must tell him that one of the things which we tried our hardest to do in Paris the other day was to get the European countries to have as clear and simple rules as possible for the pulling down of their tariffs and the abandonment of their quotas. I cannot see anything more calculated to


permit evasions and bring all we have hoped to do into a general muddle than to allow every country to have a flexible percentage for the qualification.
In that case it would be largely the qualification of origin because, of course, it is at that point that this particular machinery will be so necessary, since we shall have free trade, we hope, between a number of countries whose external tariffs are different. It is, therefore, necessary to determine very carefully the origin of goods, otherwise they might come in through one country and be shunted across into the next one.
I think that I am right in saying that all the experts of O.E.E.C. would agree that anything like a flexible rate would be disastrous. We should not know where we were. We should not give so bad an example in our anti-dumping Bill when so great a negotiation is round the corner. I do not think that the Committee should accept the Amendment. I fully agree that 25 per cent. is an arbitrary figure and that some industries could do with less and some would like very much more, right up to 50 per cent., but this 25 per cent. is a figure which is already in operation and it is one which we could defend against the charge of using the Bill as a general protectionist Measure. I am very anxious that that charge should not be sustained against us in view of the things that are happening in Europe.
I appreciate that there may be industries which would like more. Hon. Members opposite have spoken about them and my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) has had in mind the cotton industry, which would like to see 50 per cent. substituted, but it would be against the interest of United Kingdom trade, looking at it as a whole.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I have a difficulty which arises in this way. It seems to me that, in addressing himself to the question of the 25 per cent., the arguments of the President of the Board of Trade were misconceived. I see how that has arisen, and I shall explain it clearly in a moment.
If we were saying in our Amendment that we considered it wrong to have an arbitrary percentage in the Bill and that we wanted a flexible one, then the right

hon. Gentleman's arguments would have tremendous force; but we are not asking for that. We appreciate his difficulties. Nowhere have we said that 25 per cent., although it is an arbitrary figure, is wrong. We have not tabled an Amendment which in any way challenges the 25 per cent.
We are disturbed about this matter, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that we are trying to save the Bill. If Clause 8 goes through in its present form, the basis of the Bill can be set aside by evasions which have been referred to as methods which are even now being advertised and publicly used. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have great experience in these matters have brought forward arguments in support of their contentions to which the right hon. Gentleman must pay attention.
We say that in these circumstances one should first fix one's line of policy. The right hon. Gentleman has decided upon 25 per cent. That is all right. However, he should not carry out his policy in such a way that it can easily be evaded by the dumper, because if that is so the dumper will simply put his thumb to his nose and the Measure will not be much help in preventing dumping. We do not urge the Minister to turn the 25 per cent. into 50 per cent. and invite retaliatory measures. The Minister of State was right at an earlier stage when he drew our attention to that danger. In the event of the evader coming along, we ought to have some reserve power in the Measure itself to enable us to cope with the evasion.
Surely it is clear that, if that were to be done by an Order of the Board of Trade, the Department would not act capriciously and against the wishes of the President and the House. The Order would be a responsible one made to repel an attack which would undermine the Bill if it were successful. I put it to the President as strongly 'as I can that he will not be giving up a fixed percentage for a flexible percentage by accepting our Amendment. He will merely be putting himself in the position of having a reserve power, which he may never use but which would exist as a warning to a prospective dumper who thought of using the methods referred to so forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)


and also by the hon Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) at an earlier stage.
I am sure the Minister will appreciate that in our Amendments we have sought to be constructive. I must also say that he and the Minister of State have been most helpful in meeting us wherever possible. Nevertheless, they do not seem to understand that in our Amendment we are not putting forward a debating point or an argument for a flexible rate. We are uttering a warning based on the expert knowledge that we possess and that of experienced people dealing with exports every day, and our arguments have been reinforced by arguments from the other side of the Committee, with the exception of the Government Front Bench. No argument has been put forward to rebut the views which have been submitted in support of having some means of dealing with the dumper.
If all the arguments advanced from both sides of the Committee are correct, the Bill is in danger unless something is done about it. We have pointed out the danger. We have drafted an Amendment and put it before the President. The Amendment does not mean a flexible rate; it merely gives him an additional power which we should like him to have. I say with all the force I can command that if our Amendment, which has drawn his attention to the danger, is not quite what he wants, and he is not prepared to accept it, he ought to deal with the matter in another place.

Mr. Cronin: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) in expressing disappointment at the Minister's reply. He very courteously allowed me to intervene in his speech on the question of using the basis of cost of production instead of export cost, but I do not regard his reply as entirely satisfactory. I asked him how one would obtain the true cost of production, and after consultation with his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State he said that it would be authenticated. Presumably, to authenticate something is merely to find out the truth. That can hardly be an answer to my question.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): It is a technical term.

Mr. Cronin: The Minister of State is throwing out an even bigger cloud of obscuration over the whole problem. It seems that to find out the true cost of production would be a very difficult problem indeed, even for the expert attention of the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of State.
I feel fortified in my argument by some remarks made by the Minister of State himself when we last discussed the matter. In discussing Clause 5, when the purpose of one of our Amendments was to give the Board of Trade discretion to obtain information other than about the country of origin, the Minister of State said that it would be very difficult to obtain the information from the country of origin. Surely, that argument applies just the same to the cost of production. It would be equally difficult to obtain that information from a foreign country. The cost of production is something which the would-be dumper would have every possible wish to obscure if he proposed to dump in the nefarious way that we are trying to prevent.
Reverting to the question of the 25 per cent. basis or a flexible percentage, I am sorry that the Minister quoted the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. Most people who have made a study of that Measure will appreciate that the 25 per cent. was one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of it and it had largely to be abandoned as a useful method.
The Minister referred to the advantage of a fixed percentage. To whose advantage would the fixed percentage be? The would-be dumper would have to make only a simple sum and calculation to evade the Bill completely. There can be little purpose in foreknowledge, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan pointed out, the whole thing is entirely discretionary; there is no necessity to use this power which the President of the Board of Trade is being given.
The President also suggested that a varying percentage would mean that various trades and businesses would put pressure upon him to bring in various forms of Protectionism. That could hardly be a valid argument. The whole purpose of having a Board of Trade and a President is to prevent vested interests from putting undue pressure upon the country's economy in cases like this. The right hon. Gentleman may well smile, but


it is no doubt a smile of modesty, because we have the utmost confidence that he could do that if he wished.
The right hon. Gentleman gave as another reason that no other country has a similar legislative process in which a flexible percentage scale is used. If we are always to base our legislation on the precedents of other countries, very little progress will be made.
In the discussion of a previous Amendment the President showed that he was prepared completely to change his mind when the reasonableness of an Amendment was brought home to him. I hope that on this occasion he will see the point that we are making and ensure that the principle of the Amendment is debated when the Bill is considered in another place.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I hope that the President will consider this matter again. He says that no other country has this legislative process. That does not mean to say that the other countries in a Free Trade Area would not introduce all the powers they would be able to introduce under G.A.T.T.—and this power could be brought in under G.A.T.T. The object of the exercise is not merely to find out whether or not 25 per cent. is correct. The reason for putting in a figure—whether it is arbitrary or flexible, or can be varied—is to assess the home market price of the commodity. If it does not measure up to that it is not doing its job. We cannot make an overriding percentage to suit a kind of average trade in which we might be engaging.
I must also press the President upon the question of production costs. He seemed to agree that a sworn statement should be made, but the Minister of State then interposed and said that an authenticated document should be supplied. What does that mean? Are the Ministers going to get a sworn statement from producers that the costs that they put on their invoices are correct? It is quite easy to shift some of the variable and fixed overheads on to other parts of a factory organisation, so that the true situation is not disclosed. The President would be well advised to agree to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment: as amended (in Committee and on Recommittal) considered.

Clause 1.—(CASES WHERE CUSTOMS DUTIES MAY BE IMPOSED.)

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
Provided that, where the Board of Trade are not satisfied that the effect of the dumping or of the giving of the subsidy is such as to cause or threaten material injury to an established industry in the United Kingdom or is such as to retard materially the establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom, the Board shall not exercise that power if it appears to them that to do so would conflict with the obligations of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under the provisions for the time being in force of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade concluded at Geneva in the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven.
The Amendment has been put down to meet a point made in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) asked about it, as did the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). They wanted us to write into the Bill words which would make it conform with the obligations contained in Article VI of G.A.T.T., that one of the tests for putting on an anti-dumping or countervailing duty should be that material damage was done, or was threatened to be done, to an established source of supply. We thought that was a sound thing to do, and therefore we put down this Amendment, which I hope I can explain clearly, because the whole subject is extremely complicated.
What we are trying to do in order to meet the wishes of the House are three things which are not covered in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I want to explain to him why his Amendment will not do and why I think that ours is perhaps better. First, we wish to carry out our obligations under G.A.T.T. to full G.A.T.T. members by using this test of injury to United Kingdom industry when one of the G.A.T.T. countries sends us goods which are subsidised or dumped.
In the second place, we want to have power to put on a duty when injury is done to a source of supply outside the United Kingdom and of course we have first in mind the possibility that Commonwealth sources of supply might be injured


by the dumping of goods in the United Kingdom. But I think that it is right not to confine it to the Commonwealth but to extend this power to all other countries which are members of G.A.T.T. and might be so injured.
Thirdly, we wish to have powers in respect of goods coming from countries not in G.A.T.T. to put on a duty without the criterion of material injury. I should tell the House that we should normally use that criterion and we should not have a different policy except in very rare cases.
Our Amendment achieves those three objects. It provides that a duty can only be imposed if one of two conditions are fulfilled. Either the Board of Trade must be satisfied that there is a material injury to a United Kingdom source of supply or, if there is no material injury to a United Kingdom source, I can come to the House and ask for a duty when, if it were put on, we should not be in breach of our obligations under G.A.T.T. That is, I think, very skilful drafting of our Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I cannot see it.

Sir D. Eccles: The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot see it. I will read the Amendment. It says that the duty can be imposed
Provided that, where the Board of Trade are not satisfied that the effect of the dumping or of the giving of the subsidy is such as to cause or threaten material injury to an established industry in the United Kingdom …
and
… the Board shall not exercise that power if it appears to them that to do so would conflict with the obligations of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under the provisions for the time being in force on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade …
I think that is very ingenious. It means that where we are carrying on our G.A.T.T. obligations then, of course, we test by an injury to the United Kingdom But G.A.T.T. does not say that we may not put on a duty when the injury that is done concerns a supply outside the United Kingdom and therefore, as this Amendment says, I must either be satisfied that the injury is done in this country or that the case falls outside our obligations to G.A.T.T. We are left with exactly that freedom which we want, and I believe that there is no other way in which we could draft it successfully.
Article VI of G.A.T.T. has already been once amended and therefore it is necessary to draft this Amendment in such a way that if at any future time Article VI were again amended, we should in this Bill have the obligation that would then arise through the Amendment of Article VI. It will be seen that in the last line of this Amendment we leave quite open what might happen to Article VI in the future.
I agree that this has been a very difficult Amendment to draft. I hope that I have explained it to the House. I have looked at it most carefully and I believe it does all that the Opposition wishes to do and all that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham wishes to do, and it is an improvement to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(ORDERS IMPOSING DUTIES.)

Mr. Rhodes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to insert:
and to furnish information to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is a paving Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Amendment in Clause 5, page 4, line 37, to leave out subsection (1), and to insert:
(1) The Board of Trade may by order provide for the furnishing to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise of such information relating to goods of a description specified in the order which are being or have been imported into the United Kingdom as the order may prescribe; and if such information is not furnished to the satisfaction of the Board the circumstances relevant to any question as to the application thereto of section one of this Act shall be deemed to be such as the Board may determine.
We were informed by Mr. Speaker that we could discuss both Amendments together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Certainly, but we shall have to deal with this one first.

Mr. Rhodes: This is a far easier matter than the last Amendment which I moved, which was a very obscure subject. Unless Clause 5 is amended, it is useless having the Bill at all. I suppose the origin of this Bill is that it was meant as a sop to British industrialists to allow a little more free trade to develop after some of the failures in G.A.T.T. But it does not go far enough to satisfy most of the industrialists of this country who have


suffered in some degree in the past from outside dumping.
As Clause 5 stands, industry has to make its own case. It has to provide the Board of Trade with evidence that it is being injured by dumping from outside. Part of the Clause gives power to Customs and Excise, but it does not give any authority to require British importers or foreign exporters to provide information about the home market prices until after an order has been made. It may be possible for an industrialist or trade association, or a group of industries to be able to provide evidence of home market prices in an overseas country. That may be possible, but it is not possible for an industrialist, a trade association, or an industry generally, to provide information about export prices. That information is locked away in the books of the importer and of the Customs and Excise.
9.0 p.m.
The object of the Amendment is to enable the Customs and Excise to give the information to the Board of Trade so that it will be able to ascertain what really was the fair market price in the country of origin. Unless that information comes from the Customs and Excise, it is not even possible for the Board of Trade to get it by itself. I ask the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of State to tell us how the Board of Trade would set about getting information about the export price of a commodity which came from Germany or anywhere else. Unless the information is forthcoming on a statutory basis from the Customs and Excise, we shall never get it.
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how he would get it. I have heard him say time and again during our consideration of the Bill that he is out to help industry in the main. I ask him now how he will help on this matter. Can he get the information without the provisions of the Amendment? I tell him that he cannot.
There is a choice of procedure. We have worded the Amendment so that he can go either to Customs and Excise for the information or he can issue an order demanding a declaration from the exporter as to what the export price is. There is nothing new about this. This system is in operation in a large area of

world trade. America, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand all have this method of declaration. It must be an authenticated declaration. The right hon. Gentleman has conceded the principle on a previous Amendment that an authenticated statement of facts would be necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman will concede the necessity for an exporter in another country to make a declaration as to his home and export price, I am perfectly certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House will be quite happy to accept it.
It might be argued that some of these countries which insist upon a sworn declaration do it for a particular purpose, that purpose being to assess the duty payable. Industrialists deal with them every week for goods exported to dollar countries and are experienced in this and know what has to be done.
I will give the President the information—he may not know this—that the United States Customs Simplification Act, 1956, included a direction to the Secretary of the Treasury in America to report to Congress by 2nd February, 1957, on the operation and effectiveness of the United States anti-dumping Act. That report has been made, and it will not be long before the information filters through to the Board of Trade, if it has not already received it today. The Secretary of the Treasury in America has proposed the re-design of the current U.S. Customs invoice form to make it essential to show home market price in the country of origin, not only, as at present, where duties are charged on an ad valorem basis, but also automatically and in all cases where goods are liable to a specific duty or enter duty-free.
This indicates the experience which the Americans have had over the years. A recommendation has been made to the Treasury in America to adopt a certain line of conduct in the anti-dumping law in America. We therefore cannot have it argued against us that the reasons the Americans have adopted the method is on account of special circumstances in the working of their own particular duty; because, as I have tried to show, they have recommended that it should be done whether there is any duty on that article or not.
Let us suppose that the Bill is passed in its present form and the position is left that the industrialist in this country has to supply the evidence. Let us suppose that he supplies enough evidence to make out a prima facie case that somebody overseas is dumping. We have exactly the same sort of argument as we adduced on the question of production. Only one or two invoices need to be shown to throw out the whole of the antidumping machinery and to throw out the Order which has been made. A couple of invoices put through below price would shatter the Board of Trade Department which is to look after this matter, because the Board would have no evidence with which to dispute what the importer said.
Another argument which might be brought against us is that there is no inspectorate. Is it proposed to run the trade of this country in the Free Trade Area without an inspectorate? The Government will have to appoint a small department in the Board of Trade to deal with the industrial matters when the Free Trade Area is formed.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: A small one?

Mr. Rhodes: It may be a big one—but my point is that there will be a department. When all the duties come off they may not need any for a lot of industries, because those industries may not exist. I say that inspectors will be needed, but not many, for this particular job. For the whole of the European business of Canada, and it is considerable, only four inspectors are needed. Everybody in industry knows that when exporting to the countries I have named, the exporter has to put in a sworn, attested document—

Mr. Osborne: In triplicate?

Mr. Rhodes: Probably in triplicate—and I do not see why, if it is good enough for us to do it for America and all the countries I have mentioned, it should not be good enough for those countries and those in the Free Trade Area to do it for us.
I say, also, that we should take the opportunity now to do all we possibly can within G.A.T.T. If the Minister thinks that other countries will take a very easy line on this and will take this document that he has put forward for

acceptance today as an example and a precedent he will be very much mistaken. Personally, I do not know why this Bill has now been introduced at all, except, as I said at the beginning, as a slight sop to industrialists because of the disillusion about G.A.T.T. and it looked as if progress in free trade was going to collapse.
Why cannot the President postpone this Bill until we can all do it together? The talk is of a Free Trade Area in Europe, and people are just waking up a bit to that in this country. They are on the march. It will not be as easy as the right hon. Gentleman thinks; there will be a lot of opposition. Why cannot he postpone this Measure until everybody has the same anti-dumping rules? As things stand now, it only needs the President of the Board of Trade to get this Measure through, rush it into print, and when the members of the proposed European Free Trade Area get it they will all go one better.
We want to think a little more realistically about it. We cannot enter into a business bargain like this with nothing to support us but idealism. We need a little hard common-sense bargaining. That is why I was bitterly disappointed when I read in last Wednesday's The Times that the President of the Board of Trade had been making speeches which pleased the Americans, the Canadians and the Germans very much indeed; because it was indicative to me that other people besides those in the Free Trade Area were very interested in what was happening over here.
I hope that the President will have another look at this question. It is the real guts of the Bill. It is a "phoney" Bill without this Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: First of all, may I say that I am obliged to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) for his kind reference to our previous talks in the speech which he made on an earlier Amendment. I too always seek to profit by the experience and learning of the hon. Gentleman in these matters.
We are, with your approval, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, discussing two Amendments together—in page 2, line 36, and


page 4, line 37. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) described the first of those as a paving Amendment. With respect to him, I do not think it is that. I am afraid that his first Amendment is misconceived, if he will forgive me saying so.
The effect of the first Amendment would be to give the Board of Trade statutory power to furnish information to the Customs. That, of course, is not necessary because that is an administrative matter which can be done in any event. But I think the probable intention of the Amendment is that the Board of Trade should have power to require other persons to furnish information to the Customs.
I do not want to take technical points at all, except where they have some substance beyond that of mere drafting, but the second Amendment is also, in fact, defective in one sense, apart from the main substance, to which I shall come in a moment. It would have the effect of taking away from Customs the general powers which they enjoy under the Bill as drafted, under Clause 5 (1), for requiring information from importers where the anti-dumping order is already made. I take it that it would not be the intention to deprive Customs of that power.
The broad object of the proposals of hon. Members opposite is, no doubt, a desire to make it easier to establish the export price and fair market price so as to be in a better position to satisfy the criteria which are specified in the Bill. I can say right away that we would sympathise with that object, and we certainly share their desire to make this Bill as practical as possible.
What the Amendments now on the Order Paper and representing the current proposals of the Opposition would do is to seek to achieve this object by shifting the onus of proof as to both export price and fair market price from the complainant to the Board of Trade. They seek to do that now by a different method from the method which was suggested at the time of the Committee stage, though not then formally discussed. I am bound to confess that there were times when I could not help wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had the distinction entirely clearly in mind, because a large part of his argument appeared to me to be addressed to the alternative method

which was put forward in Committee and not to the method which is now being put forward.
If I may seek to make that quite clear, the method which was suggested in Committee was the requirement that all importers should provide invoices, supplied in turn by the exporters from whom they are importing, stating the current domestic value of the imported goods. This method was the discarded method put forward at that stage, and employed in these other countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred in an eloquent part of his speech.
The countries which use that other method, however, use it primarily for the evaluation of goods for tariff purposes. It is quite true that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was very up to date with regard to the United States of America, but he did a little less than justice to the Department, of which he was formerly an ornament, because we do know what has recently been done in the United States; and I quite concede that America has, as he says, very recently proposed to extend the scope of this to articles not in fact bearing a duty. Though that is true, I do not think it invalidates the principle of the matter, which is that one can have this thing working on that universal basis, requiring all importers to supply invoices containing an exporter's declaration of market value, only where it is in use as a machinery for evaluation for tariff purposes, and where that is its primary object.
I have made that clear, because the hon. Gentleman did devote so much of his speech, as it seemed to me, to a substantiation of the merits of a proposal which the Opposition, in its wisdom, and for very good reason, I think, has now discarded in favour of the alternative and more limited method which is represented by the Amendment on the Notice Paper.
I think the House will agree that whichever method is proposed must be judged by the same basic tests. Is the procedure reasonable in the wider context of its effect on trade as a whole? Will it, in fact, work satisfactorily for the specific purposes of the anti-dumping legislation? Finally, and very important, is it reasonably free from international complications and repercussions and risk of retaliation?
What I called the original method, the comprehensive method, as practiced in


other countries primarily for tariff purposes, of course, founders in this country on the first of those tests, because it would not be reasonable in the context of general trade, since we do not use that method for our evaluation for tariff purposes.

Mr. Rhodes: There is a reason for that; our system of levying the duties is different. Ours is on c.i.f. and overseas it is f.o.b.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing my point in that way. We use a different tariff method, and we think it is a better tariff method; but, because of that, we do not need this information for tariff purposes. Because we do not need it for tariff purposes, we have no general use for it over the whole field of trade. Because we have no general use for it over the whole field of trade, it would be an improper and unjustifiable imposition upon traders by and large to make this sweeping demand merely in the narrow context of this particular Bill.
The Opposition has, I think, understood this; at least, the right hon. Member for Smethwick has, in putting down his Amendment, because he has deserted that method. What he now proposes is to limit the collection of information to goods specified in a specific Board of Trade Order. He has done that, no doubt, with this point in mind.
I must submit to the House that, although it avoids the difficulty of the first of the three tests I suggested, the present Amendment founders under both the other two. In regard to its practicability, its working operation, the Amendment would not be effective for various reasons. The information would obviously be of minimum value, perhaps, because the importer who is giving it would merely be a conduit pipe for passing on the information supplied to him by the exporter as to what was the fair market value.
The importer would have no knowledge of the matters himself and nor would Customs. We would be in the position of having to accept the ipse dixit of the exporter in the foreign country. We would have no staff or machinery to check up—as I think the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has conceded, because I take his point about the

expanded staff for the European Free Trade Area. It is much too early to found anything on that, and in any case Europe is only one continent and we would have the same problem in the other continents.
We would be in this position: if we make a Statute saying that this information must be supplied by these exporters, then we are more or less binding ourselves to accept the information which they give us.

Mr. Rhodes: We are doing nothing of the sort. The Minister has got it all wrong. The Customs and Excise know it on every single transaction now. All we are asking is that the Customs and Excise should tell the Board of Trade. If that is done, we shall be perfectly happy.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No. The information will have to come from the exporters in the foreign country. We would be bound in this case to accept their declarations, although the importer here would not be able on his own knowledge to testify to them. He would be able to testify only as hearsay what he received from the exporter, but we, having written in the Statute that that information shall be furnished, would be in the position of being bound to accept it.
There is one other very substantial difficulty in this. The order contemplated in the Amendment would be a preliminary order, an investigatory order made before the main anti-dumping order under Clause 2. What is the effect of that? We make a preliminary investigatory order which makes it clear that we are contemplating at a later stage putting an anti-dumping order on certain specified goods. As soon as we do that, what do the importers do? They immediately forestall by buying quickly those articles before the anti-dumping order comes into effect. By doing that, we should be weakening the machinery and defeating the object, instead of strengthening and reinforcing it.
I want very briefly to refer to the difficulties about the other test I suggested, which is the international test. The powers here are very wide. The position under the Amendment would be that if the required information is not furnished to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, then the Board of Trade would be virtually free to make assumptions


about the export price and the fair market price and to act accordingly. That would get us into the position where we might be charged with making rules for our own convenience as we went along. That might be criticised in G.A.T.T. and might expose our export trade to the danger of reprisals.
I ask the House to believe that we have considered this matter very carefully and sympathetically. I hope that we have shown good faith in this matter by the number of suggestions from all guarters

of the House which we have accepted. We are not able to accept this one for the good reason that, on very careful study and on such advice as we have been able to have, we feel that its effect would be to weaken the main legitimate purposes of the Bill and not to strengthen them, albeit I appreciate that that is the intention of hon. Members opposite.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 158.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holman, P.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Benson, G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Randall, H. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Boardman, H.
Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Boyd, T. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Brockway, A. F.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Burke, W. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lawson, G. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Thornton, E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Clunie, J.
MacColl, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Mclnnes, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Collins, V.J. (Shorediteh &amp;amp; Finsbury)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Weitzman, D.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
McLeavy, Frank
Wheeldon, W. E.


Cronin, J. D.
MacDermot, Niall
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Willey, Frederick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fienburgh, W.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fletcher, Eric
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey C. F.
Parkin, B. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paton, John
Winterbottom, Richard


Hale, Leslie
Peart, T. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Pentland, N.



Hannan, W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.

Mr. Simmons and Mr. J. T. Price.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Cough, C. F. H.


Aitken W. T.
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Green, A.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Arbuthnot, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimond, J.


Armstrong, C. W.
Crouch, R. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Ashton, H.
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfd)


Atkins, H. E.
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barber, Anthony
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bidgood, J. C.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Holland-Martin, C. I.


Bishop, F. P.
Errington, Sir Eric
Holt, A. F.


Black, C. W.
Fell, A.
Hope, Lord John


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Finlay, Graeme
Hornby, R. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Boyle Sir Edward
Freeth, Denzil
Howard, John (Test)


Braine, B. R.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Brooman White, R. C.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Bryan, P.
Clover, D,
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Channon, Sir Henry
Godber, J. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)




Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Neave, Airey
Studholme, Sir Henry


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp;amp; Chr'ch)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Teeling, W.


Keegan, D.
Page, R. G.
Temple, J. M.


Kerr, H. W.
Partridge, E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kimball, M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Kirk, P. M.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Leavey, J. A.
Pitman, I. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.
Wade, D. W.


Longden, Gilbert
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp;amp; Chiswick)
Renton, D. L. M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wall, Major Patrick


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roper, Sir Harold
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp;amp; Border)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maddan, Martin
Russell, R. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Sharpies, R. C.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Marshall, Douglas
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mathew, R.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kensgt'n, S.)
Woollam, John Victor


Mawby, R. L.
Steward, Harold (Stookport, S.)



Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Mr. E. Wakefield and


Nairn, D. L. S.
Storey, S.
Mr. Hughes-Young.

Clause 3.—(RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the end to insert:
(5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to a duty imposed by an order under this Act (being an order made to afford protection against the giving of a subsidy) as if references to the fair market price in a country were references to the export price from that country increased by such amount (if any) as may be necessary to offset the effect of the giving of the subsidy.
The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the relief provisions of Clause 3 to countervailing duties. The Bill as drafted restricts this relief to antidumping duties, but in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) asked whether it would be possible to extend it also to countervailing duties. As a result we have given consideration to the suggestion and have produced the Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is that if the export price plus the amount of the countervailing duty is greater than the export price plus the amount of unfair reduction of price due to a subsidy, the Board of Trade may authorise the Customs to repay the difference. We have gone thus far to meet my hon. Friend. The onus will still be on the importer to show that the goods that he has imported have not been affected by subsidy which is the subject of a countervailing duty order or alternatively not to the extent of the countervailing duty. As I indicated in Committee, this may be

a very difficult thing to do, particularly where there is an indirect but general subsidy on the class or classes of goods involved.
The merit of the Amendment is that the existence of the provision will ensure that if there are any cases where an importer has imported goods which have avoided the general subsidy, he will be able to claim relief from the countervailing duty. Therefore, I think we have gone as far as we can to meet the important point put by my hon. Friend, and I thank him for the characteristically helpful and constructive suggestion which he made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(POWER TO REQUIRE INFORMATION FROM IMPORTERS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, after "satisfaction", to insert:
or the required facts are not stated".
It would be convenient if we could, with Mr. Speaker's permission, consider this Amendment and the next one together. The Amendments are little more than drafting ones. Clause 5 (1) enables the Customs to require importers to do two things: first, to state certain facts, and second, to furnish proof. The default power in the Bill as drafted extends only to a failure to furnish proof. It should obviously extend to a failure to state facts as well. The Amendments effect this purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 17, after "satisfaction", insert:
or the required facts are not stated".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 11.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS.)

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end to insert:
(2) As soon as may be after the end of each financial year (beginning with the year 1957–58) the Board of Trade shall lay before each House of Parliament a report as to the orders under which duties have been chargeable under this Act during that year, indicating the contents of those orders and their operation in that year in relation to goods which have been imported into the United Kingdom.
In Committee my right hon. and learned Friend undertook that we would table an Amendment providing that the Board of Trade should lay before each House of Parliament an annual report. We think that this is the best way to do it. We have chosen the financial year as the period which should be covered by the reports, because it is convenient that the Customs and Excise, who collect figures for the purposes of the national accounts, should also provide the figures for the same period for these reports.

Mr. Sydney Irving: As the Amendment is the substance of one which I moved in Committee, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for implementing the undertaking which was given. I am sure that this will mean that the whole question of Orders can be kept under review in the Board of Trade, and that hon. Members will have an opportunity to examine them, if they wish, as they arise each year. The provision is very welcome to my hon. Friends and myself.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS [20th February]

ELECTRICITY (INCOME TAX AND PROFITS TAX)

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the Central Electricity Authority and the establishment of a Central Electricity Generating Board and an Electricity Council, it is

expedient to provide, as from the date on which the said Authority is dissolved by that Act,—

(a) that, for the purposes of the enactments relating to income tax, and of the enactments relating to the profits tax, the said Council shall be treated as carrying on a trade or business;
(b) that those enactments shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if the trade or business carried on by the said Authority at any time before the said date had been the trade or business of the said Council, and as if any reference in those enactments to the said Authority were a reference to the said Council;
(c) that those enactments shall have effect, in relation to any time on or after the said date, as if any reference to an Area Board established under the Electricity Act, 1947, included a reference to the said Central Electricity Generating Board;
(d) that, for the purposes of the enactments relating to income tax, the trade carried on by the said Authority shall not be treated as permanently discontinued on the said date, nor shall a new trade be treated as set up and commenced on that date by the said Central Electricity Generating Board or the said Council,
so however that for the purposes of the operation of the said enactments in accordance with the preceding paragraphs anything done by, to or in relation to the said Authority shall be treated as from the said date as if it had been done by, to or in relation to the said Council.

Resolution agreed to.

ELECTRICITY [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the Central Electricity Authority and the establishment of a Central Electricity Generating Board and an Electricity Council, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which may be required—

(a) to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for enabling advances to be made by the Minister of Power, or
(b) to be raised by the Treasury, or
(c) to be paid into the Exchequer, or
(d) to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund and applied in redeeming or paying off debt or paying interest,
being an increase attributable to any provisions of that Act for amending section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, by substituting a reference to the said Council for the reference to the said Authority in subsection (2) of that section.

Resolution agreed to.

RHINE NAVIGATION CONVENTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: There are two matters relating to the Rhine Navigation Convention upon which I want to put questions to my hon. Friend. One is a matter of considerable general importance to the shipping community. It is a practical rather than an academic question. The other is a constitutional matter and one which I believe to be of importance. Before I put these questions, however, I want briefly to state what I believe to be the present position.
As the House knows, the Admiralty Court in this country has a world-wide jurisdiction For example, if a collision takes place between two Ruritanian vessels in the inland waterways of Holland, on one of the Great Lakes, or a thousand miles up the Amazon, and one of those vessels is subsequently arrested in this country, the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction over the case.
Since 1st January this year, when the relevant part of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, came into force, such world-wide jurisdiction has been limited. By the limitations contained in Section 6 of that Act,
No court in England or Wales shall have Jurisdiction to determine any claim or question certified by the Secretary of State to be a claim or question which, under the Rhine Navigation Convention, falls to be determined in accordance with the provisions thereof and any proceedings to enforce such a claim which are commenced in any such court shall be set aside.
By Section 8 of that Act,
the Rhine Navigation Convention' means the Convention of the seventh of October, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, as revised by any subsequent Convention.
There are other Sections of the Act, to which I need not refer in detail, which apply these provisions to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. Therefore, we are here dealing with a limitation upon jurisdiction which affects every court in the United Kingdom.
What is that restriction which has been placed on the jurisdiction of our courts? I do not ask my hon. Friend the Joint

Parliamentary Secretary, nor, indeed, would it be proper for him to attempt in advance, to say how the Secretary of State would apply the Convention to the facts of any particular case. It must be for the Secretary of State, and for him alone, to decide whether, on the information before him, the claim or question in any particular case falls within the provisions of the Convention.
I do, however, ask my hon. Friend to say what type or class of claim comes within the Convention. Certain claims are listed in paragraphs (a) to (s) of Section 1 (1) of the Act. Which of these claims come within the Convention? This is a matter of practical importance to the shipping community, for, unless it is clear which claims come within and which claims fall without the Convention, a ship may be arrested in this country on apparently quite proper grounds but subsequently the plaintiffs may find that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case and, in consequence, they may have to pay costs and perhaps damages for wrongful arrest.
May I give two instances? Under paragraph (j) any claim in the nature of salvage comes within the Admiralty jurisdiction of our courts. Does such a claim fall within the Convention? Does the jurisdiction of the Rhine Navigation Convention include the Rivers Lek and Waal, which take the waters of the Rhine down to the open sea? It is by no means unusual to have salvage cases in those waters. What would be the position if a ship were arrested in this country in a salvage action for services rendered off the Hook of Holland?
My second instance is under paragraph (s), which covers claims for loss of life or personal injury. If two British ships under compulsory pilotage in the New Waterway at the Hook of Holland came into collision, causing heavy loss of life, would the widows and other dependants be met in the courts of this country with a certificate which would ensure that their claims must he set aside? As I understand the position, the Secretary of State will have no alternative but to issue such a certificate, if the class of claim falls within the terms of the Convention. His discretion lies in the question whether or not the claim falls within the Convention, and not whether or not a certificate should, in justice, be issued.
If these claimants are barred from the courts of the United Kingdom where can they go for justice? What assistance can they obtain from the Rhine Navigation Tribunals unless there is some ship or other property in the Rhine to meet their claim? I ask my hon. Friend to clarify the present position. The United Kingdom is not a party to the Rhine Navigation Convention of 1868. Since that date the Convention has been amended. Last month I called at the headquarters of the Rhine Navigation in Strasbourg to obtain a copy of the present-day Convention. It is still in the hands of the printers. I hope to have a copy when it is released. In any event, the text is in French. When, before, has it become necessary to understand modern French legal terms in order to interpret an English Statute?
I am putting these questions because it is my hon Friend's Ministry which was responsible for the insertion of the limitation in this Statute. I appreciate that the Rhine Navigation Convention was referred to in the Treaty of Versailles, and that it was therefore recognised by the nations which signed the Treaty. I also appreciate that in Brussels, in 1952, when certain conventions relating to the arrest of sea-going ships, sister ships and certain rules concerning civil jurisdicton in matters of collision were discussed, it was agreed that those Conventions should not apply in cases covered by the provisions of the revised Rhine Navigation Convention of October, 1868.
I assume that this is the source from which the limitation to exclude the Convention arose, but this limitation now appears for the first time in an English Statute. The predecessor of my hon. Friend put it there. Will my hon. Friend help to explain its terms and clarify its provisions?
The second matter to which I wish to refer is the constitutional one. The Rhine Navigation Convention is defined in the Act as the Convention of 1868, as revised by any subsequent Convention. As I have said, the United Kingdom is not a party to the Rhine Navigation Convention. If, next year, these foreign countries agree upon a new Convention to revise the present one, it will automatically affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom. It will do so under the terms of the present Act

without Parliament having considered the revised Convention or having approved its terms, or even being aware of its existence. When, if ever before, has such power over the jurisdiction of our courts been left in the hands of foreigners?
I hope that my hon. Friend will give an answer to the points which I have raised, if not to all of them now, then at some later date. If he will clarify the present position it will be of the greatest assistance to the shipping community and to its advisers.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I want to add one or two words in relation to the last point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham). It is said that the Rhine Navigation Convention means the Convention of the seventh of October, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, as revised by any subsequent Convention. I tried to find out how and when any such revision had taken place. My hon. Friend said that in 1868 we were not a party to the Convention. The parties were France, Bavaria, Baden, Hesse, the Netherlands and Prussia. There was a revision in 1898 and in 1923 there was a Protocol.
So far as I can see, the Protocol was ratified by this country two years later in 1925. But none of these documents are easy to come by, and it would be of the greatest assistance if my hon. Friend could explain what steps will be taken to keep those who are practising in the law in this country in touch with what is going to happen if there is a revision which takes place by a subsequent Convention. The investigation which has to be undertaken to find out where these documents are today involves quite a lot of research. I am sure it would be of the greatest assistance if some steps could be taken to see that these were more readily available if there were any revision in the future.
The only other point that I wish to raise is this. Although it is said that the Rhine Navigation Convention means the Convention of 7th October, 1868, I apprehend that the whole of these proceedings may be out of order because there is no such Convention at all. The Convention is, in fact, dated 17th October, 1868, and perhaps I had better leave the matter there.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): Both my hon. Friends the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) have raised important matters with regard to the Rhine Navigation Convention of 1868. The Convention to which I understand my hon. Friends are referring is the one of 1868, signed by a number of parties, governing the course of traffic on the Rhine.
It was given rise to by the Treaty of Paris on 30th May, 1814. The Convention signed at Mannheim is what my hon. Friends have been discussing. The date that I have in the translation of the Acts of the Rhine, which was made by the Control Commission for Germany in 1947—and of which I would be very glad to provide my hon. Friends with a copy if they wish because, as they have said, the text in the Library is in French—is 17th October, 1868. So that, I think, is the Convention to which we are referring. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, who raised this matter, has referred to a number of points which I shall endeavour to answer. He has not given me notice of one or two of them and on those I shall endeavour to reply to him later.
My Department, as he rightly says, is concerned with the matter because the two Brussels Conventions dealing with civil jurisdiction in the matter of collision and the arrest of seagoing ships gave rise to Parts I and V of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956. As my hon. Friend has said, that enabled Her Majesty's Government to ratify those two Brussels Conventions. There are two general points under the Rhine Convention of 1868 which I should like to make in answer to my hon. Friend, and then reply to some of the other points in more detail.
The first point is with regard to the limitation of Admiralty jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956. I want here to make a point, not of law, but on the practical effects which my hon. Friends fear from that provision under Section 6 of that Act. I am advised that it is unlikely that that limitation will have general effect in practice. In fact, it does not seem likely that there will be many cases, or that there have been many cases or would

be likely to be, which the Admiralty Division of the High Court could have dealt with, but for the passing of that section.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Mr. Neave: The next point that I wish to make is in regard to the text of this Rhine Convention of 1868. It is perhaps best known to international lawyers as the Mannheim Convention. The only authentic text is a French one. There is a copy in the Library, but I would indicate, in referring to the provision of the English text, that it should be clearly understood that that is not regarded as authentic. The translation by the Control Commission, which I have already mentioned, includes the additional Protocols and the Rhine Navigation Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles.
After dealing with those two general points my hon. Friend made two further points of importance. I am glad that he was able to give me notice of them. He wished to know the types of claim which fall to be determined under this Convention of 1868. I have seen the memorandum which he sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about this. He asks in particular what would be the position with regard to collisions between vessels; whether the Secretary of State would certify that a claim for damage lay. As my hon. Friend rightly says, I cannot tell him without knowledge of the particular circumstances which may arise. But Article 34 of the Rhine Convention of 1868 gives the Rhine navigation tribunals jurisdiction in certain matters.
Article 34 (2) (c) refers to damage caused by watermen or raftsmen during a voyage or in landing. I am advised that that would certainly include a collision, but of course, for this purpose we are concerned with the River Rhine between Basle and the open sea. Although I have not taken advice on the specific point as to whether it includes the Rivers Lek and Waal I should have thought that it did, but I will confirm that with my hon. Friend.
He also asked whether widows' claims, for example where death has followed from such a collision, would be met, and what would be the position with regard to the loss of life. I will take advice upon that point and inform my hon. Friend. His original question about collision between vessels would, I am advised, be included under that Article, that is to say, damage caused by those who are engaged in plying craft during a voyage or in landing between Basle and the open sea on the River Rhine.
My hon. Friend asked about the position with regard to salvage and whether under the Rhine Convention of 1868 navigation tribunals had jurisdiction in matters of salvage. I am advised that they do not. There is in fact no reference to salvage in the Article of the Convention to which I am referring. That is a point mentioned by my hon. Friend in his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
On the second group of matters which my hon. Friend raised, as I understood it, he complained that Section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, might cause the following situation to arise. He suggested that a new Convention or a revised Convention could alter the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court in this country without Parliament having any say in the matter at all. I hope to put his fears at rest on that point. I have looked into it carefully, and I want to put it to him in this way. In Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1956, reference is made to the Rhine Navigation Convention—and I note that it is of 7th October, but I think it must clearly be the same one—of 1868. It says that it means that Convention
… as revised by any subsequent Convention.
I think that my hon. Friends were rather concerned about what that meant. Clearly, the question is: would this definition include future conventions or revisions after the date of the passing of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956. or does it include only conventions up to the time of the passing of that Act?
I am advised that the word "subsequent" in the reference to any subsequent convention can be taken to mean up to the passing of the Act and not afterwards. That sounds a somewhat technical point, but I do not think that the

position is a really difficult one. It is unlikely that my hon. Friend's fears that an Amendment to the Convention can take place without consultation with Parliament are well founded, for this reason. As he said, the United Kingdom was not a party to the Rhine Convention of 1868, but the United Kingdom is a party to the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, and under Articles 354 to 362 of that Treaty the Convention of 1868 is adopted by the Treaty and is modified by it, so that the United Kingdom is bound by that Treaty in that way to the provisions of the Rhine Convention of 1868.
As my hon. Friend knows, it is now the constitutional practice in this country not to consent to any treaty or convention, or indeed any amendment thereof of a far-reaching kind, without consulting Parliament. I am advised that the Rhine Convention—and indeed, it seems clear enough, the Treaty of Versailles—could not be amended so as to affect this country without her consent. Therefore, it seems certain that Parliament would be able to discuss the matter.
My hon. Friend raised a number of rather detailed points which I have not yet dealt with; but, as he will understand, I did not have notice of them. I will take advice about them and inform him of it. I hope that I have satisfied him upon the main point of which he gave notice. The matter is, of course, of importance to those concerned with Admiralty questions but although the points which he raised show that there was need for clarification, it does not seem to me that the practical effects are likely to be very serious.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any subsequent Rhine Convention will have no effect at all under Section 6, and that it is only any Amendment of the 1868 Convention up to the date of the passing of this Act which in fact will have effect? I understood him to say that, but I should be grateful if he would confirm that that is what he understands the position to be in his Ministry.

Mr. Neave: I am so advised. There has been consultation with the Law Officers in this matter, and I am advised that the position is as my hon. Friend stated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Ten o'clock.